Re: Licensing change: Audacious - GPLv3 -- BSD
On Mon, 09 Jul 2012 15:30:50 -0400, Tom Callaway wrote: What if the main creators of the software prefer acknowledging substantial contributions with proper attribution and copyright notice in the file preambles? I don't think what the main creators decide to acknowledge (or not) has any legal bearing on the copyrightability of past contributions. (don't like the legal requirements of some work? just don't acknowledge it!) -- Nicolas Mailhot -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Licensing change: Audacious - GPLv3 -- BSD
Hi. On Mon, 9 Jul 2012 13:10:48 + (UTC), Petr Pisar wrote: How could they have changed the license without asking contributors? I have periodically translated the messages, I believe I have some patches there and nobody had asked me. I did get asked about some (rather trivial) functions I added to the core years ago, so there was an effort to do this. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: intel ipw2100/ipw2200 firmware must be removed
Hi. On Sun, 8 Jul 2012 16:16:31 -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote: See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#Binary_Firmware Question about that: The first requirement is that the file is non-executable. Does that mean that Fedora cannot ship firmware for hardware that has a CPU compatible with the host CPU? -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: [ACTION REQUIRED] Retiring packages for Fedora 18
On 07/06/2012 09:55 PM, Bill Nottingham wrote: Package svnmailer (orphan) I've taken svnmailer in all branches. Co-maintainers very welcome (hint). Paul. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Licensing change: Audacious - GPLv3 -- BSD
On 2012-07-09, Michael Schwendt mschwe...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, 9 Jul 2012 13:10:48 + (UTC), Petr Pisar wrote: As of 3.3-beta1, Audacious is now officially under a two-clause BSD license (previously GPLv3). Some plugins (separate package) are still under other licenses, however. How could they have changed the license without asking contributors? I have periodically translated the messages, I believe I have some patches there and nobody had asked me. Have you had your name and a copyright statement in any source file? Obviously not. I just remember some patches into plugins and they have been removed probably. To highlight that you've been the [primary] author of that file? If not, you're not a full/official author to have a stake in the licensing decision. I understand the practical point of view, but I cannot agree from the point of view of law. This aspect has been already discussed and I'm not going to dispute it more. I see your name in the cs.po file's list of translators. The header says This file is distributed under the same license as the Audacious package. Same for the plugins' translations, but those have never applied a single license. Because the translation is derived work of message template (*.pot file) which is itself compilation over all source files, each getting its own license. Each plugin applies an individual license. As with source code and no accurate attribution, one would need to figure out who of the multiple translators contributed what portions of the translation. Not really feasible, IMO. Yes, but the question here are the translators rights which are, at least in my case, declared clearly in the header of cs/po.cs and also visible in git log of the project: # Petr Písař petr.pi...@atlas.cz, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012. I believe five years of creative work is significant portion of the deal to bother project leader to ask translators for permission to change the license terms. In spot of the declaration of another contributor in this threat I think Audacious upstream tracked the C code authors but ommited the translators. (Actually I do not wonder. In recent past, it was difficult to get my updates to upstream, the developers were ignoring my bug reports about out-dated po/POTFILES.in which got the whole project translation effort into deep limb. Audacious developers got tired of the internationalization probably, and they moved the translations to Lunchpad which effectively killed my interrest in translating this project any more. Changing the license to BSD while overlooking translators just confirms their ingorance in this field.) If you think you've got a stake in the licensing decision, you would need to talk to the core developers. My request for a License clarification can be found in the new bug tracker: http://redmine.audacious-media-player.org/issues/46 Thanks for the link. I will give them few sentences. -- Petr -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: [ACTION REQUIRED] Retiring packages for Fedora 18
On 07/10/2012 03:20 AM, Orcan Ogetbil wrote: On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 3:21 PM, Cosimo Cecchi wrote: On Fri, 2012-07-06 at 16:55 -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote: Removing: raptor flickcurl requires libraptor.so.1 flickcurl requires raptor-devel = 1.4.21-11.fc17 flickcurl-devel requires raptor-devel = 1.4.21-11.fc17 flickcurl-devel requires pkgconfig(raptor) = 1.4.21 liblrdf-devel requires raptor-devel = 1.4.21-11.fc17 librawstudio requires libraptor.so.1 rawstudio requires libraptor.so.1 tracker requires raptor-devel = 1.4.21-11.fc17 Tracker currently has a BuildRequires on raptor-devel, but it's actually an obsolete check, since it dropped the require a couple of years ago. The BR should just be removed from the spec file in this case. Similar situation for liblrdf. It was built against raptor2 but the liblrdf-devel erroneously required raptor-devel. Now I got this fixed. Orcan Orcan, did you want to take on those that you are co-maintaining? If not I'll take them Brendan -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: dracut-20-51 - Heads up
On Mon, Jul 09, 2012 at 10:54:12 -0400, Marc Dionne marc.c.dio...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 10:27 AM, Harald Hoyer har...@redhat.com wrote: Added an automatic test in the dracut testsuite, so that this never happens again.. Sorry for the inconvenience. Yes, rawhide sometimes eats babies. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Thanks for the heads up... but in my case too late :) One of the effects is that chunks of my / went missing, notably /etc and some other directories that I wouldn't think could be related to this. So I ended up doing a reinstall. Perhaps the corruption is more of a result of ext4 not handling the multiple unclean shutdowns while trying to debug. That happened to me on one of my two rawhide instances. I think I shot myself in the foot while trying to fix things by mounting root read/write when I shouldn't have. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: [ACTION REQUIRED] Retiring packages for Fedora 18
Hi, On 07/06/2012 10:55 PM, Bill Nottingham wrote: Package vorbisspi (fails to build) Fixed. Regards, Hans -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Licensing change: Audacious - GPLv3 -- BSD
On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 08:00:50 +0200, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: On Mon, 09 Jul 2012 15:30:50 -0400, Tom Callaway wrote: What if the main creators of the software prefer acknowledging substantial contributions with proper attribution and copyright notice in the file preambles? I don't think what the main creators decide to acknowledge (or not) has any legal bearing on the copyrightability of past contributions. (don't like the legal requirements of some work? just don't acknowledge it!) Uh, come on, no smartass comments in this thread! :-( A little bit of familiarity with the development of Audacious (not the plugins!) is necessary, or else the thread will focus on general things that don't really apply. Years ago, the software had started as a fork of BMP, which itself had been a fork of XMMS. Not only one could find copies of the old list of authors shipped with the new project releases, copyright notices were present in (many?) inherited files, too. Either referring to individuals or some team name. While working on the source code, the new team has continued to maintain copyright notices but has also introduced new files with different albeit compatible licensing. Eventually, old code for the base software has been replaced/removed completely, and together with deleting files or changing their content 100%, the copyright notices have been replaced, too. I consider it likely and plausible that so much has changed, not much old stuff is left anymore (and this is what the current development team believes, too, according to a history section in the most recent AUTHORS file). Some patch authors are still credited, others may have contributed to BSD licensed project files before. Only they can tell, and only the current main developers can tell the full story. This may be another chance for smartasses to jump in with general legal pedantry, but I don't consider that helpful. -- Fedora release 17 (Beefy Miracle) - Linux 3.4.4-5.fc17.x86_64 loadavg: 0.64 0.62 0.39 -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Licensing change: Audacious - GPLv3 -- BSD
On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 09:03:02 + (UTC), Petr Pisar wrote: Have you had your name and a copyright statement in any source file? Obviously not. I just remember some patches into plugins and they have been removed probably. The plugins are a different source package and a different Fedora package, too. This thread is about the base player. (Actually I do not wonder. In recent past, it was difficult to get my updates to upstream, the developers were ignoring my bug reports about out-dated po/POTFILES.in which got the whole project translation effort into deep limb. This list is the wrong place to complain about that. The bug tracker has changed end of 2011, but they have been quick in responding to tickets. Audacious developers got tired of the internationalization probably, and they moved the translations to Lunchpad which effectively killed my interrest in translating this project any more. I think they've moved to using Transifex. -- Fedora release 17 (Beefy Miracle) - Linux 3.4.4-5.fc17.x86_64 loadavg: 0.38 0.37 0.43 -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: [ACTION REQUIRED] Retiring packages for Fedora 18
On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 10:55 PM, Bill Nottingham nott...@redhat.com wrote: Package devtodo (orphan) I will take this package. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Quick rawhide test of libudev debuginfo
If you have the latest Rawhide, could you try the very simple test described in the comment? You will need to install the latest 'systemd' 'systemd-debuginfo' packages; my suspicion is that the latter is broken. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=838793#c2 Rich. -- Richard Jones, Virtualization Group, Red Hat http://people.redhat.com/~rjones virt-p2v converts physical machines to virtual machines. Boot with a live CD or over the network (PXE) and turn machines into Xen guests. http://et.redhat.com/~rjones/virt-p2v -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: opencv soname bump in upcoming 2.4.1
On 07/04/2012 12:13 PM, Honza Horak wrote: opencv-2.4.1 is already in Rawhide git, but not built yet, which will be done in few days though. Since 2.4.1 bumps soname, the following packages need to be rebuilt: player digikam mrpt fawkes frei0r-plugins gstreamer-plugins-bad-free php-facedetect Unfortunately, I'm not able to do the rebuild by myself, so I'd like to ask maintainers to do so after opencv-2.4.1 is built, which will be announce here as well. I've just pressed the red button and opencv-2.4.2 (yes, even newer version, than has been announced) is now built in rawhide. Please, re-build depending packages. Thanks for collaboration. Cheers, Honza -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Quick rawhide test of libudev debuginfo
Well, false alarm, possibly. It turns out that valgrind won't work yet with the new compressed DWARF that gcc is generating, so something to watch out for if you're using Rawhide. (I also noticed that gdb had problems, although it didn't segfault). https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=838793#c5 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: Licensing change: Audacious - GPLv3 -- BSD
On Mon, 2012-07-09 at 15:30 -0400, Tom Callaway wrote: On 07/09/2012 03:21 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote: and arbitrary other people, who get their patch contributions merged, don't gain any copyright protection on the file or the proper parts of it, I don't think this is true. Agreed. It is my opinion that this is not the case, assuming that the changes are substantial enough to be copyrightable. I'm otherwise refraining from comment on this thread, because it is unclear as to whether translations are copyrightable or not. Translated books are certainly copyrightable and have a separate copyright than the original, I do not see why translations of programs should not assuming entire phrases are translated and not single terms. Simo. -- Simo Sorce * Red Hat, Inc * New York -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Exchanging reviews - mine one is leveldb
Hello. I'm again offering a review for trade. You'll review this one and I'll review yours: * https://bugzilla.redhat.com/823170 - leveldb - A fast and lightweight key/value database library by Google This is a C++ library intended for the developers. I added autotools build system and built it as a shared library. It also has known issues on a secondary arches (I'm working on it). The package is one of the requirements for Riak. -- With best regards, Peter Lemenkov. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Exchanging reviews - mine one is leveldb
On Tue, 2012-07-10 at 15:08 +0400, Peter Lemenkov wrote: Hello. I'm again offering a review for trade. You'll review this one and I'll review yours: * https://bugzilla.redhat.com/823170 - leveldb - A fast and lightweight key/value database library by Google This is a C++ library intended for the developers. I added autotools build system and built it as a shared library. It also has known issues on a secondary arches (I'm working on it). The package is one of the requirements for Riak. I'll go ahead and take it as I believe ceph is currently bundling this library, and it would be good to get it unbundled. Jonathan signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Licensing change: Audacious - GPLv3 -- BSD
On 07/10/2012 07:06 AM, Simo Sorce wrote: On Mon, 2012-07-09 at 15:30 -0400, Tom Callaway wrote: On 07/09/2012 03:21 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote: and arbitrary other people, who get their patch contributions merged, don't gain any copyright protection on the file or the proper parts of it, I don't think this is true. Agreed. It is my opinion that this is not the case, assuming that the changes are substantial enough to be copyrightable. I'm otherwise refraining from comment on this thread, because it is unclear as to whether translations are copyrightable or not. Translated books are certainly copyrightable and have a separate copyright than the original, I do not see why translations of programs should not assuming entire phrases are translated and not single terms. I'm not taking sides on this issue, merely pointing out that it is unclear. ~tom == Fedora Project -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Licensing change: Audacious - GPLv3 -- BSD
On 07/10/2012 05:22 AM, Michael Schwendt wrote: This may be another chance for smartasses to jump in with general legal pedantry, but I don't consider that helpful. All accurate legal interpretations are essentially pedantry. What I don't consider helpful is making broad generalizations about legal issues. Copyright doesn't fail to exist because it isn't attributed. Yes, the copyright situation on a long-lived FOSS project like Audacious is rather complicated. ~tom == Fedora Project -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Unable to login to Koji website
Am 09.07.2012 23:17, schrieb Matt Spaulding: I'm having trouble logging into the Koji website. I ran fedora-packager-setup on the command line and generated my certs, including the browser cert for Firefox. I then followed the instructions on the wiki to import the cert into my browser. When clicking login on Koji it asks if I would like to use my imported certificate to log in. After clicking Ok the website spins trying to connect and is not able to do so. Did I miss a step? Anyone had this happen? Btw, I am able to use the Koji command line tool just fine. Same problem here. Starting built processes on koji via cli ain't a problem, but logging in via Firefox and a valid, new certificate doesn't work. Any hints? Regards, vinz. -- Vinzenz Vietzke B1 Systems GmbH Osterfeldstraße 7 / 85088 Vohburg / http://www.b1-systems.de GF: Ralph Dehner / Unternehmenssitz: Vohburg / AG: Ingolstadt,HRB 3537 -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: gutenprint update in rawhide, soname bump
On Mon, Jul 09, 2012 at 08:53:14AM -0500, Jiri Popelka wrote: This soname bump has been an upstream error. Please rebuild (again) cinepaint and photoprint once this gets into rawhide. Thanks. Photoprint is rebuilt for rawhide now. Thanks, Matt -- Matt Domsch Technology Strategist Dell | Office of the CTO -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
[Bug 838679] perl-Plack: EL-6 build
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=838679 --- Comment #2 from Xavier Bachelot xav...@bachelot.org --- Thanks for the comprehensive summary. Looks like this will be a though one. About the missing PPC64 packages, this is a pain, but that can be dealt with. About the test suites, I think it should be acceptable to selectively disable tests that are failing because of the unmet dependencies. What do you think ? -- 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: Licensing change: Audacious - GPLv3 -- BSD
On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 08:57:52 -0400, Tom Callaway wrote: On 07/10/2012 05:22 AM, Michael Schwendt wrote: This may be another chance for smartasses to jump in with general legal pedantry, but I don't consider that helpful. All accurate legal interpretations are essentially pedantry. This mailing-list is impressive at times. Not! :-/ Pedantry alone wouldn't be a bad thing. Lack of accuracy is what makes it bad. Combine pedantry with accuracy, and this thread may become helpful. But instead, there is a lot of speculation and assumptions, and rose-coloured glasses are involved, too. And no IANAL disclaimers seen anywhere. If you really want to contribute accurate legal interpretations, let's discuss a specific scenario/case. What I don't consider helpful is making broad generalizations about legal issues. Copyright doesn't fail to exist because it isn't attributed. That's a generalization. And a dangerous one. In particular, since we would first need to discuss what requirements a creation must meet to qualify for copyright. That alone is not a simple topic. Also, imagine that both a main developer [of a project] and a patch contributor own copyright on an almost identical work they've created. Such as a code change that involves more than touching a single line, but which may still lead to duplication or high similarity, because multiple people have worked on the same problem coincidentally. If the patch author decides to offer his work to the project, nothing forces the project developer to copy [or adapt] the patch instead of applying the own work, which may be *very* similar or even equal (if it comes to small code changes). One would need to examine the final code changes in detail to decide whether any copying of copyrighted work has been involved and whether that could have been avoided. It boils down to some forms of etiquette, whether and when main project developers recognize contributed patches as substantial and automatically give proper credits *before* a copyright holder wants to enforce rights. It shouldn't be too much to ask for that a contributor explicitly points out what the main developers are expected to do (such as giving credits, adding names to copyright notices, e.g.) when copying or adapting a patch or only parts of it, even if they may just do that to save some time. It could be that more patches would be rejected because they would not be considered substantial enough and not applicable to copyright. There's the loop again. ;) Yes, the copyright situation on a long-lived FOSS project like Audacious is rather complicated. +1 That sounds reasonable. -- Fedora release 17 (Beefy Miracle) - Linux 3.4.4-5.fc17.x86_64 loadavg: 0.29 0.34 0.34 -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
[Bug 838679] perl-Plack: EL-6 build
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=838679 Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rc040...@freenet.de --- Comment #3 from Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de --- (In reply to comment #2) About the test suites, I think it should be acceptable to selectively disable tests that are failing because of the unmet dependencies. What do you think ? This may let packages get away with unnoticed bugs and issues. I'd consider this to be prohibitive, because Plack and its infrastructure are pretty comprehensive and security sensitive. Openly said, based on what I went through on Fedora (A need to closely track the upstream versions of several perl-Plack perl dependency), I do not see much chances of getting Plack into epel6 without major general upgrades to many other epel6 perl-modules (and may-be perl itself). -- 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
UFS / AFFS filesystems
Hi, Have the ufs / affs and other file systems been intentionally dropped from the F17 kernel, or is that just an oversight? -- Ian Chapman. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: rawhide report: 20120710 changes
Fedora Rawhide Report (rawh...@fedoraproject.org) said: Compose started at Tue Jul 10 08:15:02 UTC 2012 Broken deps for x86_64 -- [gnucash] gnucash-2.4.10-4.fc17.x86_64 requires libofx.so.4()(64bit) [grisbi] grisbi-0.8.8-3.fc17.x86_64 requires libofx.so.4()(64bit) [homebank] homebank-4.4-3.fc17.x86_64 requires libofx.so.4()(64bit) [kmymoney] kmymoney-4.6.2-2.fc18.x86_64 requires libofx.so.4()(64bit) [skrooge] skrooge-libs-1.3.0-1.fc18.x86_64 requires libofx.so.4()(64bit) Oops, my bad, didn't catch that the minor update changed ABI. Will fix... Bill -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Licensing change: Audacious - GPLv3 -- BSD
On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 04:21:12PM +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote: Pedantry alone wouldn't be a bad thing. Lack of accuracy is what makes it bad. Combine pedantry with accuracy, and this thread may become helpful. But instead, there is a lot of speculation and assumptions, and rose-coloured glasses are involved, too. And no IANAL disclaimers seen anywhere. Saying things like: and arbitrary other people, who get their patch contributions merged, don't gain any copyright protection on the file or the proper parts of it, is inaccurate and dangerous. It's entirely appropriate to indicate that it's untrue. What I don't consider helpful is making broad generalizations about legal issues. Copyright doesn't fail to exist because it isn't attributed. That's a generalization. And a dangerous one. In particular, since we would first need to discuss what requirements a creation must meet to qualify for copyright. That alone is not a simple topic. No we don't. A lack of attribution does not result in copyright failing to exist. The work not being copyrightable in the first place may result in copyright failing to exist, but that has nothing to do with attribution. It boils down to some forms of etiquette, whether and when main project developers recognize contributed patches as substantial and automatically give proper credits *before* a copyright holder wants to enforce rights. It boils down to copyright law. Nothing more. Nothing less. Project maintainers simply don't get to make that choice on behalf of others. -- Matthew Garrett | mj...@srcf.ucam.org -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
[perl-Perl-Critic] Fix breakage with Perl::Tidy ≥ 20120619 (CPAN RT#77977)
commit 7ebd378dc372d774519584051607ccaee7367d92
Author: Paul Howarth p...@city-fan.org
Date: Tue Jul 10 15:52:45 2012 +0100
Fix breakage with Perl::Tidy ≥ 20120619 (CPAN RT#77977)
Perl-Critic-1.117-tidy.patch | 41 +
perl-Perl-Critic.spec| 14 +++---
2 files changed, 52 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
---
diff --git a/Perl-Critic-1.117-tidy.patch b/Perl-Critic-1.117-tidy.patch
new file mode 100644
index 000..d8cef24
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Perl-Critic-1.117-tidy.patch
@@ -0,0 +1,41 @@
+See https://rt.cpan.org/Public/Bug/Display.html?id=77977
+
+--- lib/Perl/Critic/Policy/CodeLayout/RequireTidyCode.pm (revision 4123)
lib/Perl/Critic/Policy/CodeLayout/RequireTidyCode.pm (working copy)
+@@ -12,6 +12,7 @@
+ use warnings;
+
+ use English qw(-no_match_vars);
++use IO::String qw ;
+ use Readonly;
+
+ use Perl::Tidy qw ;
+@@ -49,7 +50,8 @@
+
+ # Set configuration if defined
+ if (defined $self-{_perltidyrc} $self-{_perltidyrc} eq $EMPTY) {
+-$self-{_perltidyrc} = \$EMPTY;
++my $rc = $EMPTY;
++$self-{_perltidyrc} = \$rc;
+ }
+
+ return $TRUE;
+@@ -92,10 +94,16 @@
+
+ # Trap Perl::Tidy errors, just in case it dies
+ my $eval_worked = eval {
++# Perl::Tidy 20120619 no longer accepts a scalar reference for stdio.
++my $handle = IO::String-new( $stderr );
++# Since Perl::Tidy 20120619 modifies $source, we make a copy so
++# we can get a good comparison. Doing an s/// on $source after the
++# fact appears not to work with the previous Perl::Tidy.
++my $source_copy = $source;
+ Perl::Tidy::perltidy(
+-source = \$source,
++source = \$source_copy,
+ destination = \$dest,
+-stderr = \$stderr,
++stderr = $handle,
+ defined $self-{_perltidyrc} ? (perltidyrc =
$self-{_perltidyrc}) : (),
+);
+1;
diff --git a/perl-Perl-Critic.spec b/perl-Perl-Critic.spec
index d87db68..9f054b0 100644
--- a/perl-Perl-Critic.spec
+++ b/perl-Perl-Critic.spec
@@ -1,11 +1,12 @@
Name: perl-Perl-Critic
Version: 1.117
-Release: 7%{?dist}
+Release: 8%{?dist}
Summary: Critique Perl source code for best-practices
Group: Development/Libraries
License: GPL+ or Artistic
URL: http://search.cpan.org/dist/Perl-Critic/
Source0:
http://search.cpan.org/CPAN/authors/id/T/TH/THALJEF/Perl-Critic-%{version}.tar.gz
+Patch2:Perl-Critic-1.117-tidy.patch
BuildArch: noarch
# Build process
@@ -116,8 +117,12 @@ of Perl code were mixed directly in the test script. That
sucked.
%prep
%setup -q -n Perl-Critic-%{version}
+
+# Fix breakage with Perl::Tidy ≥ 20120619 (CPAN RT#77977)
+%patch2
+
+# Drop Test::Kwalitee tests in RHEL ≥ 7
%if 0%{?rhel} = 7
-# Drop Test::Kwalitee tests in RHEL = 7
rm xt/author/95_kwalitee.t
sed -i -e '/^xt\/author\/95_kwalitee.t$/ d' MANIFEST
%endif
@@ -148,6 +153,9 @@ LC_ALL=en_US ./Build %{!?perl_bootstrap:author}test
%{_mandir}/man3/Test::Perl::Critic::Policy.3pm*
%changelog
+* Tue Jul 10 2012 Paul Howarth p...@city-fan.org - 1.117-8
+- fix breakage with Perl::Tidy ≥ 20120619 (CPAN RT#77977)
+
* Tue Jul 10 2012 Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com - 1.117-7
- Perl 5.16 re-rebuild of bootstrapped packages
@@ -158,7 +166,7 @@ LC_ALL=en_US ./Build %{!?perl_bootstrap:author}test
- conditionalize aspell
* Tue Apr 24 2012 Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com - 1.117-4
-- Do not use Test::Kwalitee on RHEL = 7
+- do not use Test::Kwalitee on RHEL ≥ 7
* Tue Feb 28 2012 Paul Howarth p...@city-fan.org - 1.117-3
- spec clean-up
--
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: UFS / AFFS filesystems
On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 3:50 PM, Ian Chapman packa...@amiga-hardware.com wrote: Hi, Have the ufs / affs and other file systems been intentionally dropped from the F17 kernel, or is that just an oversight? They're still there but they've been moved to the kernel-modules-extra sub package. Peter -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: UFS / AFFS filesystems
On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 10:59 AM, Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com wrote: On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 10:50:44PM +0800, Ian Chapman wrote: Hi, Have the ufs / affs and other file systems been intentionally dropped from the F17 kernel, or is that just an oversight? Nothing is mentioned in the changelog, so it would be an oversight. Not mentioning it in the changelog does not mean it's an oversight. josh -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Licensing change: Audacious - GPLv3 -- BSD
On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 15:57:31 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: Saying things like: and arbitrary other people, who get their patch contributions merged, don't gain any copyright protection on the file or the proper parts of it, is inaccurate and dangerous. It's entirely appropriate to indicate that it's untrue. I wrote that in the context of files giving credit to *some* people [*], which could (!) be an indication that any _unknown_ changes, which other people may have managed to get included in those files, likely have not been considered substantial enough to qualify for copyright. It could even be that the submitters did not consider the patches substantial enough themselves. That's speculation, I don't like it. But it has been only a question to Petr, because there are lots of files in Audacious that give credit. I've never asked to be credited but have been mentioned nevertheless, and I can only guess what work has been recognized. I would not claim rights on tiny patches and bug-fixes another developer could come up with, too, even if a copyright law pedant would claim that I could. [*] Those people believe they do most of the original work to qualify for copyright. It boils down to some forms of etiquette, whether and when main project developers recognize contributed patches as substantial and automatically give proper credits *before* a copyright holder wants to enforce rights. It boils down to copyright law. Nothing more. Nothing less. Project maintainers simply don't get to make that choice on behalf of others. Sure they do. We can go on endlessly. They can reject copying something verbatim, and they may change the code nevertheless in either the same or a very similar way. Coincidentally or because it's an obvious way (and no patented stuf, hey!). Then somebody else would need to decide whether copyright law is applicable. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Licensing change: Audacious - GPLv3 -- BSD
On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 05:45:15PM +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote: On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 15:57:31 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: Saying things like: and arbitrary other people, who get their patch contributions merged, don't gain any copyright protection on the file or the proper parts of it, is inaccurate and dangerous. It's entirely appropriate to indicate that it's untrue. I wrote that in the context of files giving credit to *some* people [*], which could (!) be an indication that any _unknown_ changes, which other people may have managed to get included in those files, likely have not been considered substantial enough to qualify for copyright. Which is a dangerous position to take. Don't say things like that. -- Matthew Garrett | mj...@srcf.ucam.org -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: UsrMove, /etc/shells, and rpm interpreter requires
Am 10.07.2012 17:18, schrieb Orion Poplawski: I just got the following: grib_api has broken dependencies in the rawhide tree: On x86_64: grib_api-1.9.16-3.fc18.x86_64 requires /usr/bin/ksh On i386: grib_api-1.9.16-3.fc18.i686 requires /usr/bin/ksh Please resolve this as soon as possible. after I decided to stop changing the path of /usr/bin/ksh to /bin/ksh in grib_api since I figured with UsrMove, /usr/bin/ksh should be the proper location. But then I see that ksh still installs in /bin. Before I file a bug against ksh I wanted to make sure that we do indeed want to move to /usr/bin. I see that bash is in /usr/bin, so I guess that's a yes. My other concern though is /etc/shells: # cat /etc/shells /bin/sh /bin/bash /sbin/nologin /bin/tcsh /bin/csh /bin/ksh /bin/zsh Shouldn't that be /usr/ as well. Will it cause problems if it doesn't match with the /etc/passwd entry? yes, /etc/shells might be a problem... I would suggest: install the $shell in /usr/bin/$shell, Provide: /bin/$shell in the spec file and add both paths in /etc/shell or we patch chsh and the like? Thoughts? -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: [ACTION REQUIRED] Retiring packages for Fedora 18
On 2012-07-09 10:54, Matej Cepl wrote: On 06/07/12 22:55, Bill Nottingham wrote: Package html401-dtds (orphan) comaintained by: gnat Does it mean, we won't have HTML 4.01 DTDs packaged in Fedora? No. We're in progress of transfering the ownership of this package from me to gnat, will ping him. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: [ACTION REQUIRED] Retiring packages for Fedora 18
On 07/10/2012 10:29 AM, Ville Skyttä wrote: On 2012-07-09 10:54, Matej Cepl wrote: On 06/07/12 22:55, Bill Nottingham wrote: Package html401-dtds (orphan) comaintained by: gnat Does it mean, we won't have HTML 4.01 DTDs packaged in Fedora? No. We're in progress of transfering the ownership of this package from me to gnat, will ping him. Sorry, had a few busy days and didn't for whatever reason think I had reason to read the retiring packages... I took ownership. -- Nathanael d. Noblet t 403.875.4613 -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Licensing change: Audacious - GPLv3 -- BSD
On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 16:52:19 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 05:45:15PM +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote: On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 15:57:31 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: Saying things like: and arbitrary other people, who get their patch contributions merged, don't gain any copyright protection on the file or the proper parts of it, is inaccurate and dangerous. It's entirely appropriate to indicate that it's untrue. I wrote that in the context of files giving credit to *some* people [*], which could (!) be an indication that any _unknown_ changes, which other people may have managed to get included in those files, likely have not been considered substantial enough to qualify for copyright. Which is a dangerous position to take. Don't say things like that. I'd love to take advice from you, but with your overly brief comments you're unconvincing. I don't think copyright law is as simple as to cover it with one-line mails. -- Fedora release 17 (Beefy Miracle) - Linux 3.4.4-5.fc17.x86_64 loadavg: 0.54 0.68 0.55 -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Licensing change: Audacious - GPLv3 -- BSD
On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 11:45 AM, Michael Schwendt mschwe...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 15:57:31 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: Saying things like: and arbitrary other people, who get their patch contributions merged, don't gain any copyright protection on the file or the proper parts of it, is inaccurate and dangerous. It's entirely appropriate to indicate that it's untrue. I wrote that in the context of files giving credit to *some* people [*], which could (!) be an indication that any _unknown_ changes, which other people may have managed to get included in those files, likely have not been considered substantial enough to qualify for copyright. Michael, please stop with this. Copyright is automatic under Berne. Whether it qualifies is not up to people deciding whether unknown contributors' contributions are substantial enough. You're describing an entirely impractical mode of approach. Whatever some group of recognized contributors might think, any contributor can bring suit because their code is included. The way to go about it is to recognize it, not constantly try to rationalize a bizarre notion where you get to decide it. Making the determinations you keep bringing up, even in court, is not a very clear legal matter. Just recognize the point -- people who contribute code to a GPL'd project (or any project) automatically have a copyright claim, and you work on that basis, just like any other project contemplating changing their license does. Seth It could even be that the submitters did not consider the patches substantial enough themselves. That's speculation, I don't like it. But it has been only a question to Petr, because there are lots of files in Audacious that give credit. I've never asked to be credited but have been mentioned nevertheless, and I can only guess what work has been recognized. I would not claim rights on tiny patches and bug-fixes another developer could come up with, too, even if a copyright law pedant would claim that I could. [*] Those people believe they do most of the original work to qualify for copyright. It boils down to some forms of etiquette, whether and when main project developers recognize contributed patches as substantial and automatically give proper credits *before* a copyright holder wants to enforce rights. It boils down to copyright law. Nothing more. Nothing less. Project maintainers simply don't get to make that choice on behalf of others. Sure they do. We can go on endlessly. They can reject copying something verbatim, and they may change the code nevertheless in either the same or a very similar way. Coincidentally or because it's an obvious way (and no patented stuf, hey!). Then somebody else would need to decide whether copyright law is applicable. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: UsrMove, /etc/shells, and rpm interpreter requires
On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 06:12:45PM +0200, Harald Hoyer wrote: Am 10.07.2012 17:18, schrieb Orion Poplawski: Shouldn't that be /usr/ as well. Will it cause problems if it doesn't match with the /etc/passwd entry? yes, /etc/shells might be a problem... I would suggest: install the $shell in /usr/bin/$shell, Provide: /bin/$shell in the spec file and add both paths in /etc/shell or we patch chsh and the like? Adding both paths to /etc/shell sounds preferable to me. -Toshio pgph2DrC3Xcxh.pgp Description: PGP signature -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: [ACTION REQUIRED] Retiring packages for Fedora 18
Just a note that the following additional packages were orphaned yesterday as part of cleaning up packages owned by people without bugzilla accounts: devilspie dogtail gtkmm-utils k12linux-quick-start-guide kcoloredit kgrab kiconedit koverartist ksig libzip polyester polyester3 python-djblets python-flask python-werkzeug stalonetray tasks -Toshio pgpyfDSkFBhQS.pgp Description: PGP signature -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Licensing change: Audacious - GPLv3 -- BSD
On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 13:19:09 -0400, Seth Johnson wrote: Copyright is automatic under Berne. Which only means that you don't need to apply for copyright at any government office. But copyright on _what_? What comprises a copyright work? Single words? Single lines of code? Trivial/obvious code fragments some other person who have added at some other point of time? Or more original work only? people who contribute code to a GPL'd project (or any project) automatically have a copyright claim, And we still don't know what has been contributed, if at all. And what licensing terms were applied to the file the person contributed to. The project this thread refers to has used different licenses for a long time already. Hey Audacious developers, here's a patch for a missing return 1; in libaudcore, and now that you've seen my patch, if you merge that line of code, I claim my rights. -- Fedora release 17 (Beefy Miracle) - Linux 3.4.4-5.fc17.x86_64 loadavg: 0.27 0.20 0.15 -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: [ACTION REQUIRED] Retiring packages for Fedora 18
On Tue, 2012-07-10 at 10:38 -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: kcoloredit I think I've missed some mails, but this is a very useful application, is there any alternative? Cheers, Mario -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Licensing change: Audacious - GPLv3 -- BSD
On 07/10/2012 11:05 AM, Michael Schwendt wrote: On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 13:19:09 -0400, Seth Johnson wrote: Copyright is automatic under Berne. Which only means that you don't need to apply for copyright at any government office. But copyright on _what_? What comprises a copyright work? Single words? Single lines of code? Trivial/obvious code fragments some other person who have added at some other point of time? Or more original work only? That's a great question. people who contribute code to a GPL'd project (or any project) automatically have a copyright claim, And we still don't know what has been contributed, if at all. And what licensing terms were applied to the file the person contributed to. The project this thread refers to has used different licenses for a long time already. Hey Audacious developers, here's a patch for a missing return 1; in libaudcore, and now that you've seen my patch, if you merge that line of code, I claim my rights. Yep, good example. What is the threshold? There is only 1 person who can answer that authoritatively: The judge who ends up presiding over the court case where it's formally asked. Everything else is opinion. Some of it informed: attorneys, some of it educated guessing (devoted groklaw readers), some of it blindingly ignorant. Wherever each member of de...@l.fpo falls on that spectrum, the odds are they shouldn't be giving legal advice because there's only 1 judge and none of us are they. -- Brendan Conoboy / Red Hat, Inc. / b...@redhat.com -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: [ACTION REQUIRED] Retiring packages for Fedora 18
Toshio Kuratomi wrote: Just a note that the following additional packages were orphaned yesterday as part of cleaning up packages owned by people without bugzilla accounts: devilspie I've taken devilspie, but just that it's not removed from fedora since I think it's often useful to Xfce users. Co-Maintainers are welcome and I would also be totally happy if someone steps up and want to take ownership again! Johannes dogtail gtkmm-utils k12linux-quick-start-guide kcoloredit kgrab kiconedit koverartist ksig libzip polyester polyester3 python-djblets python-flask python-werkzeug stalonetray tasks -Toshio -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Licensing change: Audacious - GPLv3 -- BSD
On Tue, 2012-07-10 at 20:05 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote: On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 13:19:09 -0400, Seth Johnson wrote: Copyright is automatic under Berne. Which only means that you don't need to apply for copyright at any government office. But copyright on _what_? What comprises a copyright work? Single words? Single lines of code? Trivial/obvious code fragments some other person who have added at some other point of time? Or more original work only? people who contribute code to a GPL'd project (or any project) automatically have a copyright claim, And we still don't know what has been contributed, if at all. And what licensing terms were applied to the file the person contributed to. The project this thread refers to has used different licenses for a long time already. Hey Audacious developers, here's a patch for a missing return 1; in libaudcore, and now that you've seen my patch, if you merge that line of code, I claim my rights. Can you stop the useless hyperbole ? The reason why nobody is telling you a hard rule is that there are no hard rules, but often it will be decided on case by case basis. So when re-licensing you have to be paranoid but most importantly do it with the support of a lawyer that knows how to minimize ill effects should someone later decide you did something wrong. That's all was really on the table I think, all people really *can* say is that you cannot assume much about who can claims copyright until you analyze the specific contribution. This is one reason why some people insist in pretending you to surrender any copyright to the project owner when you contribute code. In general if you are doing things in good faith everything will work fine in the end. Just don't try to be casual when addressing the matter as it is not something to underestimate like you seem to be doing. Simo. -- Simo Sorce * Red Hat, Inc * New York -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Fedora 17 ARM GA Release
Is there a build compatible with WM8650 ARM 926 EJ-S or Cortex Nuvoton M0? Regards, Rahul. On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 11:06 PM, Paul Whalen pwha...@redhat.com wrote: The Fedora ARM team is pleased to announce that the Fedora 17 GA release for ARM is now available for download from: http://download.fedoraproject.org/pub/fedora-secondary/releases/17/Images/ The GA release includes prebuilt images for Versatile Express (QEMU), Trimslice, Beagleboard xM, Pandaboard, Kirkwood Plugs, Highbank and iMX based hardware platforms. Please visit the announcement page for additional information and links to specific hardware images: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Architectures/ARM/Fedora_17_GA We invite you to download the Fedora 17 GA release and provide your valuable input to the Fedora ARM team. Please join us on the IRC in #fedora-arm on Freenode or send feedback and comments to the ARM mailing list. On behalf of the Fedora ARM team, Paul -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: [ACTION REQUIRED] Retiring packages for Fedora 18
Toshio Kuratomi wrote: Just a note that the following additional packages were orphaned yesterday as part of cleaning up packages owned by people without bugzilla accounts: kcoloredit kiconedit libzip I can help with these. -- rex -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: [ACTION REQUIRED] Retiring packages for Fedora 18
Le 10/07/2012 19:38, Toshio Kuratomi a écrit : python-flask python-werkzeug I actively maintain these two (i pushed Flask 0.8.1 last week, 0.9 will land rawhide soon) as a co-maintainer. As a matter of fact, I would have taken ownership if i had been notified that they were orphaned, but i only got notified that someone else requested (and was automatically granted) ownership. H. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: [ACTION REQUIRED] Retiring packages for Fedora 18
On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 08:30:16PM +0200, Haïkel Guémar wrote: Le 10/07/2012 19:38, Toshio Kuratomi a écrit : python-flask python-werkzeug I actively maintain these two (i pushed Flask 0.8.1 last week, 0.9 will land rawhide soon) as a co-maintainer. As a matter of fact, I would have taken ownership if i had been notified that they were orphaned, but i only got notified that someone else requested (and was automatically granted) ownership. Sorry about that -- it was easier for me to make these mass changes in the database than through the pkgdb application so no notifications went out. I know that the person who picked up the packages did so because he needed them for things he was working on rather than a special need to own the packages themselves, though -- if you'd like to switch owner/comaintainer roles he'd probably be more than willing. -Toshio pgpuCdsexyg1n.pgp Description: PGP signature -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Licensing change: Audacious - GPLv3 -- BSD
On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 14:20:32 -0400, Simo Sorce wrote: Can you stop the useless hyperbole ? Sure, can the useless generalization and pedantry stop, too? The reason why nobody is telling you a hard rule is that there are no hard rules, but often it will be decided on case by case basis. Hence my initial question on what contribution we talk about? And on possible reasons why there have been no credits anywhere at all. My interest was in the code/patch contribution only, as the translation work has been given credit for. So when re-licensing you have to be paranoid but most importantly do it with the support of a lawyer that knows how to minimize ill effects should someone later decide you did something wrong. Oh, legal advice. How many small and losely organized FLOSS projects with no commercial backing consult a lawyer when they relicence or merge code from other projects? That's all was really on the table I think, all people really *can* say is that you cannot assume much about who can claims copyright until you analyze the specific contribution. This is one reason why some people insist in pretending you to surrender any copyright to the project owner when you contribute code. Yes, please, can we analyze specific contributions? I've pointed out more than once that many files have been replaced or deleted, which increases the chance that old(er) contributions and inherited code sections are not left anymore. In general if you are doing things in good faith everything will work fine in the end. Just don't try to be casual when addressing the matter as it is not something to underestimate like you seem to be doing. Not clear what you think I underestimate. -- Fedora release 17 (Beefy Miracle) - Linux 3.4.4-5.fc17.x86_64 loadavg: 0.09 0.24 0.38 -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: [ACTION REQUIRED] Retiring packages for Fedora 18
Le 10/07/2012 20:42, Toshio Kuratomi a écrit : Sorry about that -- it was easier for me to make these mass changes in the database than through the pkgdb application so no notifications went out. I know that the person who picked up the packages did so because he needed them for things he was working on rather than a special need to own the packages themselves, though -- if you'd like to switch owner/comaintainer roles he'd probably be more than willing. -Toshio I'd rather have new co-maintainers sending an email or opening tickets before being granted the commit bit. That avoids potential misunderstandings or conflicting changes. :] I'm more worried about werkzeug/flask - which i also use for some admin web apps- consistent packaging than ownership. H. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: [ACTION REQUIRED] Retiring packages for Fedora 18
On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 20:30:16 +0200, Haïkel Guémar wrote: Le 10/07/2012 19:38, Toshio Kuratomi a écrit : python-flask python-werkzeug I actively maintain these two (i pushed Flask 0.8.1 last week, 0.9 will land rawhide soon) as a co-maintainer. As a matter of fact, I would have taken ownership if i had been notified that they were orphaned, but i only got notified that someone else requested (and was automatically granted) ownership. Could you please respond to http://bugz.fedoraproject.org/python-feedparser in particular the aging NEEDINFO query in #787401 that addresses you? -- Fedora release 17 (Beefy Miracle) - Linux 3.4.4-5.fc17.x86_64 loadavg: 0.62 0.27 0.31 -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Licensing change: Audacious - GPLv3 -- BSD
On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 16:52:19 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 05:45:15PM +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote: On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 15:57:31 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: I wrote that in the context of files giving credit to *some* people [*], which could (!) be an indication that any _unknown_ changes, which other people may have managed to get included in those files, likely have not been considered substantial enough to qualify for copyright. Which is a dangerous position to take. Don't say things like that. I'd love to take advice from you, but with your overly brief comments you're unconvincing. I don't think copyright law is as simple as to cover it with one-line mails. Please consider that in the Oracle vs Google case, Oracle ended up with 9-line copying (plus a few test files), and the judge decided that *as* *a* *matter* *of* *law* copyright infringement had occurred for those 9 lines. http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120510205659643#1119 That's what a very smart judge decided in a huge trial with some of the countries top lawyers involved. I don't have any clear idea what is not substantial enough to qualify for copyright, but this very simple code did https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3940683 -- Nicolas Mailhot -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Licensing change: Audacious - GPLv3 -- BSD
On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 3:33 PM, Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mail...@laposte.net wrote: Please consider that in the Oracle vs Google case, Oracle ended up with 9-line copying (plus a few test files), and the judge decided that *as* *a* *matter* *of* *law* copyright infringement had occurred for those 9 lines. Yes. And also told Oracle that it was very limited what they could claim as damage caused by the copyright infringement over those 9 lines. Yes, those 9 lines belong to you my precious butterfly. No, they are not significant and this is all a waste of time. m -- martin.langh...@gmail.com mar...@laptop.org -- Software Architect - OLPC - ask interesting questions - don't get distracted with shiny stuff - working code first - http://wiki.laptop.org/go/User:Martinlanghoff -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: [ACTION REQUIRED] Retiring packages for Fedora 18
Le 10/07/2012 21:07, Michael Schwendt a écrit : Could you please respond to http://bugz.fedoraproject.org/python-feedparser in particular the aging NEEDINFO query in #787401 that addresses you? I'm looking that issue right now. H. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: intel ipw2100/ipw2200 firmware must be removed
Hi. On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 17:52:28 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote Do we have any such firmware at all? Let's stick to practical issues. Wei don't, as far as I am aware. But with Intel actually preparing to ship Xeon Phi hardware we might sooner than later. -- The creatures looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again: but it was impossible to say which was which. -- George Orwell, Animal Farm -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Licensing change: Audacious - GPLv3 -- BSD
On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 3:48 PM, Martin Langhoff martin.langh...@gmail.com wrote: Yes. And also told Oracle that it was very limited what they could claim as damage caused by the copyright infringement over those 9 lines. Very limited in the context of billion dollar lawsuits. Statutory infringement for commercial use makes any infringement a potentially non-trivial at the level of mere mortals. Besides, the damages are generally irrelevant the FUD and disruption are the real costs. The only litigation that ends up in front of a judge are where one or both parties is either crazy or a fool. Everyone else settles. But this is a silly discussion. There is substantial jurisdictional differences on the bar of copyrightability, and because there are basically no useful bright lines the details are basically not worth discussing. The point is that being cautious and conservative is a very good policy and about the only one which can be sanely advocated. If someone's contributions are really insignificant then it's no big deal to replace them if they're being unfriendly and are unwilling to go along with a re-licensing. It may be a bit of a pain, but it's much less of a pain than.. this discussion not to mention the pain of a potential legal dispute. And no, re-licensing a many-authored project isn't simply fun or easy. This is also a reason why projects should practice good hygiene upfront, and checking up on this— and propagating best practices— is one of the services a packager can provide to their upstreams. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Licensing change: Audacious - GPLv3 -- BSD
On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 03:48:52PM -0400, Martin Langhoff wrote: On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 3:33 PM, Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mail...@laposte.net wrote: Please consider that in the Oracle vs Google case, Oracle ended up with 9-line copying (plus a few test files), and the judge decided that *as* *a* *matter* *of* *law* copyright infringement had occurred for those 9 lines. Yes. And also told Oracle that it was very limited what they could claim as damage caused by the copyright infringement over those 9 lines. Yes, those 9 lines belong to you my precious butterfly. No, they are not significant and this is all a waste of time. But Google are not permitted to redistribute that code. If a work is relicensed without the assent of all copyright holders then the work is undistributable, no matter how small any damages might be. -- Matthew Garrett | mj...@srcf.ucam.org -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Licensing change: Audacious - GPLv3 -- BSD
On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 21:33:26 +0200, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: Please consider that in the Oracle vs Google case, Oracle ended up with 9-line copying (plus a few test files), and the judge decided that *as* *a* *matter* *of* *law* copyright infringement had occurred for those 9 lines. http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120510205659643#1119 That's what a very smart judge decided in a huge trial with some of the countries top lawyers involved. I don't have any clear idea what is not substantial enough to qualify for copyright, but this very simple code did https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3940683 Do you think a few more verdicts like that will influence small FLOSS projects? In that they will not apply proposed fixes faster, faster, faster, http://www.i-programmer.info/news/193-android/4224-oracle-v-google-judge-is-a-programmer.html but will spend a bit more time on creating the fixes/code changes themselves? -- Fedora release 17 (Beefy Miracle) - Linux 3.4.4-5.fc17.x86_64 loadavg: 0.33 0.26 0.41 -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: [ACTION REQUIRED] Retiring packages for Fedora 18
On Ter, 2012-07-10 at 02:11 +0100, Sérgio Basto wrote: On Seg, 2012-07-09 at 05:54 +0100, Sérgio Basto wrote: On Sex, 2012-07-06 at 16:55 -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote: Removing: raptor flickcurl requires libraptor.so.1 flickcurl requires raptor-devel = 1.4.21-11.fc17 flickcurl-devel requires raptor-devel = 1.4.21-11.fc17 flickcurl-devel requires pkgconfig(raptor) = 1.4.21 liblrdf-devel requires raptor-devel = 1.4.21-11.fc17 librawstudio requires libraptor.so.1 rawstudio requires libraptor.so.1 tracker requires raptor-devel = 1.4.21-11.fc17 from http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2012-June/168262.html So can we get flickcurl and (lib)rawstudio ported to raptor2? I think raptor 1 needs to be retired sooner or later. I open a bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=838709 to compile flickcurl against raptor2, I test in my local machine with mock and flickcurl and rawstudio compiles without problems with raptor2 ... flickcurl has been updated to 1.22 and build in rawhide with raptor2-devel. So librawstudio and rawstudio should be rebuild , anyone do this ? please BTW also darktable depend on flickcurl library ... Thanks, -- Sérgio M. B. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Licensing change: Audacious - GPLv3 -- BSD
On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 3:33 PM, Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mail...@laposte.net wrote: Please consider that in the Oracle vs Google case, Oracle ended up with 9-line copying (plus a few test files), and the judge decided that *as* *a* *matter* *of* *law* copyright infringement had occurred for those 9 lines. Yes. And also told Oracle that it was very limited what they could claim as damage caused by the copyright infringement over those 9 lines. He told them they could claim 15$ for those IIRC. That's pocket change for Oracle and Google but not for your average free software project. -- Nicolas Mailhot -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Licensing change: Audacious - GPLv3 -- BSD
On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 21:33:26 +0200, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: Please consider that in the Oracle vs Google case, Oracle ended up with 9-line copying (plus a few test files), and the judge decided that *as* *a* *matter* *of* *law* copyright infringement had occurred for those 9 lines. http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120510205659643#1119 That's what a very smart judge decided in a huge trial with some of the countries top lawyers involved. I don't have any clear idea what is not substantial enough to qualify for copyright, but this very simple code did https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3940683 Do you think a few more verdicts like that will influence small FLOSS projects? In that they will not apply proposed fixes faster, faster, faster, You complained no one here was a lawyer and any residual changes would be deemed not qualifying under copyright law. I posted a reference to a very recent judgement where a very good lawyer tried to argue the same for nine very simple code lines over a code corpus that dwarfs audacious (not qualifying seems to be written de minimis in american lawyer speek) and a very good judge refused the argument. If that's not good enough for you as authoritative reference I don't know what could be. -- Nicolas Mailhot -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
File XML-LibXML-2.0002.tar.gz uploaded to lookaside cache by jplesnik
A file has been added to the lookaside cache for perl-XML-LibXML: 5704aff196a6a18ad5255f6b336f5d51 XML-LibXML-2.0002.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-XML-LibXML] Update to 2.0002
commit 36626e240f151fcbdca77fa29af5239881cfc233
Author: Jitka Plesnikova jples...@redhat.com
Date: Tue Jul 10 09:32:02 2012 +0200
Update to 2.0002
.gitignore |1 +
perl-XML-LibXML.spec |7 +--
sources |2 +-
3 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
---
diff --git a/.gitignore b/.gitignore
index eb0836f..56c2282 100644
--- a/.gitignore
+++ b/.gitignore
@@ -10,3 +10,4 @@ XML-LibXML-1.70.tar.gz
/XML-LibXML-1.98.tar.gz
/XML-LibXML-1.99.tar.gz
/XML-LibXML-2.0001.tar.gz
+/XML-LibXML-2.0002.tar.gz
diff --git a/perl-XML-LibXML.spec b/perl-XML-LibXML.spec
index 3d2ef8d..3b199a7 100644
--- a/perl-XML-LibXML.spec
+++ b/perl-XML-LibXML.spec
@@ -3,8 +3,8 @@ Name: perl-XML-LibXML
# https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=469480
# it might not be needed anymore
# this module is maintained, the other is not
-Version:2.0001
-Release:2%{?dist}
+Version:2.0002
+Release:1%{?dist}
Epoch: 1
Summary:Perl interface to the libxml2 library
@@ -102,6 +102,9 @@ fi
%{_mandir}/man3/*.3*
%changelog
+* Tue Jul 10 2012 Jitka Plesnikova jples...@redhat.com - 1:2.0002-1
+- 2.0002 bump
+
* Thu Jun 28 2012 Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com - 1:2.0001-2
- Perl 5.16 rebuild
diff --git a/sources b/sources
index 70d043a..02cd5f6 100644
--- a/sources
+++ b/sources
@@ -1 +1 @@
-f35457c2e74b8d112ad64a8a300e9b4d XML-LibXML-2.0001.tar.gz
+5704aff196a6a18ad5255f6b336f5d51 XML-LibXML-2.0002.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 838486] perl-XML-LibXML-2.0002 is available
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=838486 Jitka Plesnikova jples...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||jples...@redhat.com Assignee|mmasl...@redhat.com |jples...@redhat.com -- 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 838486] perl-XML-LibXML-2.0002 is available
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=838486 Jitka Plesnikova jples...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Fixed In Version||perl-XML-LibXML-2.0002-1.fc ||18 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2012-07-10 03:40:25 -- 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-srpm-macros] Enable perl_bootstrap for perl 5.16 rebuild
commit 7008ab015dc318a78c0249f610ff69b48b22cdd5
Author: Petr Písař ppi...@redhat.com
Date: Tue Jul 10 14:08:11 2012 +0200
Enable perl_bootstrap for perl 5.16 rebuild
macros.perl-srpm |2 +-
perl-srpm-macros.spec |5 -
2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
---
diff --git a/macros.perl-srpm b/macros.perl-srpm
index fd86296..114c422 100644
--- a/macros.perl-srpm
+++ b/macros.perl-srpm
@@ -13,5 +13,5 @@
# dependencies, for example: perl-Test-Minimum-Version -
# perl-Perl-Minimum-Version Defined for bootstraping, undefined otherwise.
# Usage: %%if !%%{defined perl_bootstrap} ... %%endif
-%perl_bootstrap 1
+#%%perl_bootstrap 1
diff --git a/perl-srpm-macros.spec b/perl-srpm-macros.spec
index f173073..694460b 100644
--- a/perl-srpm-macros.spec
+++ b/perl-srpm-macros.spec
@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
Name: perl-srpm-macros
Version:1
-Release:3%{?dist}
+Release:4%{?dist}
Summary:RPM macros for building Perl source package from source repository
Group: Development/Libraries
License:GPLv3+
@@ -19,6 +19,9 @@ install -m 644 -D %{SOURCE0} \
%config %{_sysconfdir}/rpm/macros.perl-srpm
%changelog
+* Tue Jul 10 2012 Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com - 1-4
+- Disable perl_bootstrap for perl 5.16 rebuild
+
* Wed Jun 06 2012 Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com - 1-3
- Perl 5.16 rebuild
--
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 838839] New: amavisd-new cannot be installed on RHEL 6.3
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=838839 Bug ID: 838839 QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org Severity: medium Version: el6 Priority: unspecified CC: janfr...@tanso.net, kana...@kanarip.com, perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org, st...@silug.org Assignee: st...@silug.org Summary: amavisd-new cannot be installed on RHEL 6.3 Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Linux Reporter: dave.mcne...@gmail.com Type: Bug Documentation: --- Hardware: x86_64 Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: amavisd-new Product: Fedora EPEL Description of problem: Cannot install amavisd-new on RHEL 6.3 (64-bit) from EPEL. Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): amavisd-new-2.6.4-2.el6.noarch How reproducible: Every time. Steps to Reproduce: 1. Clean install RHEL 6.3 x86_64 2. Register with RHN, yum update and reboot 3. install epel-release from http://dl.fedoraproject.org/pub/epel/6/x86_64/epel-release-6-7.noarch.rpm 4. Attempt to install amavisd-new Actual results: See attached file 'amavisd-install-fail.txt' Expected results: amavisd-new RPM and dependencies successfully installed Additional info: -- 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 838839] amavisd-new cannot be installed on RHEL 6.3
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=838839 --- Comment #1 from Dave McNeill dave.mcne...@gmail.com --- Created attachment 597263 -- https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=597263action=edit Output of 'yum -y install amavisd-new' -- 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 838839] amavisd-new cannot be installed on RHEL 6.3
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=838839 --- Comment #2 from manuel wolfshant wo...@nobugconsulting.ro --- Dave, you have to enable the optional channel, there are several perl packages over there to which your setup does not have access. -- 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 838839] amavisd-new cannot be installed on RHEL 6.3
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=838839 --- Comment #3 from manuel wolfshant wo...@nobugconsulting.ro --- I meant your current setup ... -- 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 838839] amavisd-new cannot be installed on RHEL 6.3
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=838839 Robert Scheck red...@linuxnetz.de changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED CC||red...@linuxnetz.de Resolution|--- |NOTABUG Last Closed||2012-07-10 08:17:58 --- Comment #4 from Robert Scheck red...@linuxnetz.de --- Please enable the Optional channel in your RHN for this host... -- 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-Inspector] Perl 5.16 re-rebuild of bootstrapped packages
commit f8d7e1480c681ea89e79d0a40a83f4766b7e9777
Author: Petr Písař ppi...@redhat.com
Date: Tue Jul 10 14:49:41 2012 +0200
Perl 5.16 re-rebuild of bootstrapped packages
perl-Class-Inspector.spec |5 -
1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
---
diff --git a/perl-Class-Inspector.spec b/perl-Class-Inspector.spec
index 2968d44..be99e03 100644
--- a/perl-Class-Inspector.spec
+++ b/perl-Class-Inspector.spec
@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
Name: perl-Class-Inspector
Version: 1.27
-Release: 2%{?dist}
+Release: 3%{?dist}
Summary: Get information about a class and its structure
License: GPL+ or Artistic
Group: Development/Libraries
@@ -51,6 +51,9 @@ make test AUTOMATED_TESTING=1
%{_mandir}/man3/*
%changelog
+* Tue Jul 10 2012 Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com - 1.27-3
+- Perl 5.16 re-rebuild of bootstrapped packages
+
* Wed Jun 06 2012 Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com - 1.27-2
- Perl 5.16 rebuild
--
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-List-MoreUtils] Perl 5.16 re-rebuild of bootstrapped packages
commit 34f2c2e09d5010ae75583ad577d5b2824a892a02
Author: Petr Písař ppi...@redhat.com
Date: Tue Jul 10 14:49:43 2012 +0200
Perl 5.16 re-rebuild of bootstrapped packages
perl-List-MoreUtils.spec |5 -
1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
---
diff --git a/perl-List-MoreUtils.spec b/perl-List-MoreUtils.spec
index 8af396b..e67651f 100644
--- a/perl-List-MoreUtils.spec
+++ b/perl-List-MoreUtils.spec
@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
Name: perl-List-MoreUtils
Version: 0.33
-Release: 2%{?dist}
+Release: 3%{?dist}
Summary: Provide the stuff missing in List::Util
Group: Development/Libraries
License: GPL+ or Artistic
@@ -58,6 +58,9 @@ rm -rf %{buildroot}
%{_mandir}/man3/List::MoreUtils.3pm*
%changelog
+* Tue Jul 10 2012 Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com - 0.33-3
+- Perl 5.16 re-rebuild of bootstrapped packages
+
* Tue Jun 19 2012 Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com - 0.33-2
- Perl 5.16 rebuild
--
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-POE] Perl 5.16 re-rebuild of bootstrapped packages
commit 785e8630a160801ce46be75a9f76241b48fa574e
Author: Petr Písař ppi...@redhat.com
Date: Tue Jul 10 14:49:43 2012 +0200
Perl 5.16 re-rebuild of bootstrapped packages
perl-POE.spec |5 -
1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
---
diff --git a/perl-POE.spec b/perl-POE.spec
index 596bc25..6a0857e 100644
--- a/perl-POE.spec
+++ b/perl-POE.spec
@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
Name: perl-POE
Version: 1.354
-Release: 2%{?dist}
+Release: 3%{?dist}
Summary: POE - portable multitasking and networking framework for Perl
Group: Development/Libraries
@@ -119,6 +119,9 @@ make test
%{_mandir}/man3/*.3*
%changelog
+* Tue Jul 10 2012 Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com - 1.354-3
+- Perl 5.16 re-rebuild of bootstrapped packages
+
* Tue Jun 12 2012 Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com - 1.354-2
- Perl 5.16 rebuild
--
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-HTTP-Lite] Perl 5.16 re-rebuild of bootstrapped packages
commit 48d86e837586618808320369203bd29242e44900
Author: Petr Písař ppi...@redhat.com
Date: Tue Jul 10 14:49:39 2012 +0200
Perl 5.16 re-rebuild of bootstrapped packages
perl-HTTP-Lite.spec |5 -
1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
---
diff --git a/perl-HTTP-Lite.spec b/perl-HTTP-Lite.spec
index d5e02f4..d3d5fda 100644
--- a/perl-HTTP-Lite.spec
+++ b/perl-HTTP-Lite.spec
@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
Name: perl-HTTP-Lite
Version:2.3
-Release:6%{?dist}
+Release:7%{?dist}
Summary:Lightweight HTTP implementation
License:GPL+ or Artistic
Group: Development/Libraries
@@ -54,6 +54,9 @@ RELEASE_TESTING=1 make test
%{_mandir}/man3/*
%changelog
+* Tue Jul 10 2012 Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com - 2.3-7
+- Perl 5.16 re-rebuild of bootstrapped packages
+
* Fri Jun 08 2012 Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com - 2.3-6
- Perl 5.16 rebuild
--
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-Test-Version] Perl 5.16 re-rebuild of bootstrapped packages
commit 587805b2388781ea0b74243f46964f39364e7933
Author: Petr Písař ppi...@redhat.com
Date: Tue Jul 10 14:49:41 2012 +0200
Perl 5.16 re-rebuild of bootstrapped packages
perl-Test-Version.spec |5 -
1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
---
diff --git a/perl-Test-Version.spec b/perl-Test-Version.spec
index c22784a..cbcdbc5 100644
--- a/perl-Test-Version.spec
+++ b/perl-Test-Version.spec
@@ -3,7 +3,7 @@
Name: perl-Test-Version
Version: 1.002001
-Release: 6%{?dist}
+Release: 7%{?dist}
Summary: Check to see that versions in modules are sane
License: Artistic 2.0
Group: Development/Libraries
@@ -102,6 +102,9 @@ rm -rf %{buildroot}
%{_mandir}/man3/Test::Version.3pm*
%changelog
+* Tue Jul 10 2012 Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com - 1.002001-7
+- Perl 5.16 re-rebuild of bootstrapped packages
+
* Wed Jun 13 2012 Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com - 1.002001-6
- Perl 5.16 rebuild
--
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-HTTP-Message] Perl 5.16 re-rebuild of bootstrapped packages
commit 322364307a6ff781c0a0f953ad536eb12ac21f1e
Author: Petr Písař ppi...@redhat.com
Date: Tue Jul 10 14:55:43 2012 +0200
Perl 5.16 re-rebuild of bootstrapped packages
perl-HTTP-Message.spec |5 -
1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
---
diff --git a/perl-HTTP-Message.spec b/perl-HTTP-Message.spec
index 14eddff..005a9d8 100644
--- a/perl-HTTP-Message.spec
+++ b/perl-HTTP-Message.spec
@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
Name: perl-HTTP-Message
Version:6.03
-Release:3%{?dist}
+Release:4%{?dist}
Summary:HTTP style message
License:GPL+ or Artistic
Group: Development/Libraries
@@ -94,6 +94,9 @@ make test TEST_FILES=$(echo $(find t/ -name '*.t' | grep
-Fvx t/message-charset
%{_mandir}/man3/*
%changelog
+* Tue Jul 10 2012 Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com - 6.03-4
+- Perl 5.16 re-rebuild of bootstrapped packages
+
* Tue Jun 12 2012 Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com - 6.03-3
- Perl 5.16 rebuild
--
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-Test-Script] Perl 5.16 re-rebuild of bootstrapped packages
commit de350679509b4f38e334e0823109adfc12956f5a
Author: Petr Písař ppi...@redhat.com
Date: Tue Jul 10 14:56:29 2012 +0200
Perl 5.16 re-rebuild of bootstrapped packages
perl-Test-Script.spec |5 -
1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
---
diff --git a/perl-Test-Script.spec b/perl-Test-Script.spec
index d5c7c17..11acae7 100644
--- a/perl-Test-Script.spec
+++ b/perl-Test-Script.spec
@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
Name: perl-Test-Script
Version:1.07
-Release:8%{?dist}
+Release:9%{?dist}
Summary:Cross-platform basic tests for scripts
License:GPL+ or Artistic
Group: Development/Libraries
@@ -59,6 +59,9 @@ rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
%{_mandir}/man3/*
%changelog
+* Tue Jul 10 2012 Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com - 1.07-9
+- Perl 5.16 re-rebuild of bootstrapped packages
+
* Wed Jun 13 2012 Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com - 1.07-8
- Perl 5.16 rebuild
--
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-Test-Pod-LinkCheck] Perl 5.16 re-rebuild of bootstrapped packages
commit efc936ceca74da0e5642474ace0d25b906d688e4
Author: Petr Písař ppi...@redhat.com
Date: Tue Jul 10 14:56:42 2012 +0200
Perl 5.16 re-rebuild of bootstrapped packages
perl-Test-Pod-LinkCheck.spec |5 -
1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
---
diff --git a/perl-Test-Pod-LinkCheck.spec b/perl-Test-Pod-LinkCheck.spec
index b7c28eb..9ed9a0d 100644
--- a/perl-Test-Pod-LinkCheck.spec
+++ b/perl-Test-Pod-LinkCheck.spec
@@ -4,7 +4,7 @@
Name: perl-Test-Pod-LinkCheck
Version:0.007
-Release:2%{?dist}
+Release:3%{?dist}
Summary:Tests POD for invalid links
License:GPL+ or Artistic
Group: Development/Libraries
@@ -71,6 +71,9 @@ find $RPM_BUILD_ROOT -depth -type d -exec rmdir {}
2/dev/null \;
%{_mandir}/man3/*
%changelog
+* Tue Jul 10 2012 Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com - 0.007-3
+- Perl 5.16 re-rebuild of bootstrapped packages
+
* Fri Jun 22 2012 Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com - 0.007-2
- Perl 5.16 rebuild
--
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-Test-Mojibake] Perl 5.16 re-rebuild of bootstrapped packages
commit 180147d674a22d276a250fb43cbfce51567db73c
Author: Petr Písař ppi...@redhat.com
Date: Tue Jul 10 14:56:51 2012 +0200
Perl 5.16 re-rebuild of bootstrapped packages
perl-Test-Mojibake.spec |5 -
1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
---
diff --git a/perl-Test-Mojibake.spec b/perl-Test-Mojibake.spec
index ecd41c1..c51eb22 100644
--- a/perl-Test-Mojibake.spec
+++ b/perl-Test-Mojibake.spec
@@ -13,7 +13,7 @@
Name: perl-Test-Mojibake
Version: 0.4
-Release: 2%{?dist}
+Release: 3%{?dist}
Summary: Check your source for encoding misbehavior
Group: Development/Libraries
License: GPL+ or Artistic
@@ -156,6 +156,9 @@ rm -rf %{buildroot}
%{_mandir}/man3/Test::Mojibake.3pm*
%changelog
+* Tue Jul 10 2012 Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com - 0.4-3
+- Perl 5.16 re-rebuild of bootstrapped packages
+
* Thu Jun 28 2012 Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com - 0.4-2
- Perl 5.16 rebuild
--
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-DBIx-Class] Perl 5.16 re-rebuild of bootstrapped packages
commit b41d378b4a3a2dbe98c6727e9b9b09059236586d
Author: Petr Písař ppi...@redhat.com
Date: Tue Jul 10 14:58:12 2012 +0200
Perl 5.16 re-rebuild of bootstrapped packages
perl-DBIx-Class.spec |5 -
1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
---
diff --git a/perl-DBIx-Class.spec b/perl-DBIx-Class.spec
index 9ab730f..d0a288a 100644
--- a/perl-DBIx-Class.spec
+++ b/perl-DBIx-Class.spec
@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
Name: perl-DBIx-Class
Summary:Extensible and flexible object - relational mapper
Version:0.08196
-Release:4%{?dist}
+Release:5%{?dist}
License:GPL+ or Artistic
Group: Development/Libraries
Source0:
http://search.cpan.org/CPAN/authors/id/A/AR/ARODLAND/DBIx-Class-%{version}.tar.gz
@@ -170,6 +170,9 @@ make test
%changelog
+* Tue Jul 10 2012 Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com - 0.08196-5
+- Perl 5.16 re-rebuild of bootstrapped packages
+
* Sat Jun 30 2012 Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com - 0.08196-4
- Perl 5.16 rebuild
--
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-Plugin-Session] Perl 5.16 re-rebuild of bootstrapped packages
commit ff9bdd1b051ad5a7f201df293f136c6f13e3e0e9
Author: Petr Písař ppi...@redhat.com
Date: Tue Jul 10 14:58:25 2012 +0200
Perl 5.16 re-rebuild of bootstrapped packages
perl-Catalyst-Plugin-Session.spec |5 -
1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
---
diff --git a/perl-Catalyst-Plugin-Session.spec
b/perl-Catalyst-Plugin-Session.spec
index 1604977..c7c1e96 100644
--- a/perl-Catalyst-Plugin-Session.spec
+++ b/perl-Catalyst-Plugin-Session.spec
@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
Name: perl-Catalyst-Plugin-Session
Summary:Catalyst generic session plugin
Version:0.35
-Release:3%{?dist}
+Release:4%{?dist}
License:GPL+ or Artistic
Group: Development/Libraries
Source0:
http://search.cpan.org/CPAN/authors/id/B/BO/BOBTFISH/Catalyst-Plugin-Session-%{version}.tar.gz
@@ -84,6 +84,9 @@ make test
%{_mandir}/man3/*
%changelog
+* Tue Jul 10 2012 Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com - 0.35-4
+- Perl 5.16 re-rebuild of bootstrapped packages
+
* Mon Jul 02 2012 Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com - 0.35-3
- Perl 5.16 rebuild
--
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-Module-Metadata] Perl 5.16 re-rebuild of bootstrapped packages
commit 5db7d5747dfbd88462b1f624d6e9a5514d1e9694
Author: Petr Písař ppi...@redhat.com
Date: Tue Jul 10 15:02:51 2012 +0200
Perl 5.16 re-rebuild of bootstrapped packages
perl-Module-Metadata.spec |5 -
1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
---
diff --git a/perl-Module-Metadata.spec b/perl-Module-Metadata.spec
index b70da29..009c020 100644
--- a/perl-Module-Metadata.spec
+++ b/perl-Module-Metadata.spec
@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
Name: perl-Module-Metadata
Version: 1.09
-Release: 3%{?dist}
+Release: 4%{?dist}
Summary: Gather package and POD information from perl module files
License: GPL+ or Artistic
Group: Development/Libraries
@@ -66,6 +66,9 @@ make test TEST_FILES=xt/*.t
%{_mandir}/man3/Module::Metadata.3pm*
%changelog
+* Tue Jul 10 2012 Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com - 1.09-4
+- Perl 5.16 re-rebuild of bootstrapped packages
+
* Wed Jun 06 2012 Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com - 1.09-3
- Perl 5.16 rebuild
--
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-SOAP-Transport-TCP] Perl 5.16 re-rebuild of bootstrapped packages
commit 2da3bde046aad50a9ff5256b3776b57b94377b6f
Author: Petr Písař ppi...@redhat.com
Date: Tue Jul 10 15:03:04 2012 +0200
Perl 5.16 re-rebuild of bootstrapped packages
perl-SOAP-Transport-TCP.spec |5 -
1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
---
diff --git a/perl-SOAP-Transport-TCP.spec b/perl-SOAP-Transport-TCP.spec
index e60be11..49ff508 100644
--- a/perl-SOAP-Transport-TCP.spec
+++ b/perl-SOAP-Transport-TCP.spec
@@ -3,7 +3,7 @@
Name: perl-SOAP-Transport-TCP
Version:0.715
-Release:5%{?dist}
+Release:6%{?dist}
Summary:TCP Transport Support for SOAP::Lite
License:GPL+ or Artistic
Group: Development/Libraries
@@ -57,6 +57,9 @@ find %{buildroot} -depth -type d -exec rmdir {} 2/dev/null \;
%{_mandir}/man3/*
%changelog
+* Tue Jul 10 2012 Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com - 0.715-6
+- Perl 5.16 re-rebuild of bootstrapped packages
+
* Mon Jun 11 2012 Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com - 0.715-5
- Perl 5.16 rebuild
--
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-Pod-Perldoc] Perl 5.16 re-rebuild of bootstrapped packages
commit 2e47f82f0d908e296ea33b6d6a3eb11e58d3e38a
Author: Petr Písař ppi...@redhat.com
Date: Tue Jul 10 15:03:18 2012 +0200
Perl 5.16 re-rebuild of bootstrapped packages
perl-Pod-Perldoc.spec |5 -
1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
---
diff --git a/perl-Pod-Perldoc.spec b/perl-Pod-Perldoc.spec
index 46c3478..5e21bd9 100644
--- a/perl-Pod-Perldoc.spec
+++ b/perl-Pod-Perldoc.spec
@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
%global cpan_version 3.17
Name: perl-Pod-Perldoc
Version:%(eval echo '%{cpan_version}' | tr '_' '.')
-Release:7%{?dist}
+Release:8%{?dist}
Summary:Look up Perl documentation in Pod format
License:GPL+ or Artistic
Group: Development/Libraries
@@ -89,6 +89,9 @@ make test
%{_mandir}/man3/*
%changelog
+* Tue Jul 10 2012 Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com - 3.17-8
+- Perl 5.16 re-rebuild of bootstrapped packages
+
* Wed Jun 27 2012 Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com - 3.17-7
- Perl 5.16 rebuild
--
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-Filter] Perl 5.16 re-rebuild of bootstrapped packages
commit 1e29a8230579cc7b87d501be04f22edd36679106
Author: Petr Písař ppi...@redhat.com
Date: Tue Jul 10 15:03:51 2012 +0200
Perl 5.16 re-rebuild of bootstrapped packages
perl-Filter.spec |5 -
1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
---
diff --git a/perl-Filter.spec b/perl-Filter.spec
index 10aff84..bf32cbe 100644
--- a/perl-Filter.spec
+++ b/perl-Filter.spec
@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
Name: perl-Filter
Version:1.45
-Release:2%{?dist}
+Release:3%{?dist}
Summary:Perl source filters
License:GPL+ or Artistic
Group: Development/Libraries
@@ -59,6 +59,9 @@ make test
%{_mandir}/man3/*
%changelog
+* Tue Jul 10 2012 Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com - 1.45-3
+- Perl 5.16 re-rebuild of bootstrapped packages
+
* Wed Jun 27 2012 Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com - 1.45-2
- Perl 5.16 rebuild
--
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-PPI] Perl 5.16 re-rebuild of bootstrapped packages
commit 9ba2e25ea3f6e46a017eb5a25bfae3c65eb639fc
Author: Petr Písař ppi...@redhat.com
Date: Tue Jul 10 15:08:35 2012 +0200
Perl 5.16 re-rebuild of bootstrapped packages
perl-PPI.spec |5 -
1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
---
diff --git a/perl-PPI.spec b/perl-PPI.spec
index d246fc2..f6dfeae 100644
--- a/perl-PPI.spec
+++ b/perl-PPI.spec
@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
Name: perl-PPI
Version:1.215
-Release:5%{?dist}
+Release:6%{?dist}
Summary:Parse, Analyze and Manipulate Perl
Group: Development/Libraries
License:GPL+ or Artistic
@@ -77,6 +77,9 @@ make test TEST_FILES=xt/*.t RELEASE_TESTING=1
%changelog
+* Tue Jul 10 2012 Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com - 1.215-6
+- Perl 5.16 re-rebuild of bootstrapped packages
+
* Tue Jun 19 2012 Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com - 1.215-5
- Perl 5.16 rebuild
- Build-require Class::Inspector for tests
--
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-CPAN-Meta-Requirements] Perl 5.16 re-rebuild of bootstrapped packages
commit 39e03d0773afb9dfdc94f0995c7a7618bdfd8383
Author: Petr Písař ppi...@redhat.com
Date: Tue Jul 10 15:08:44 2012 +0200
Perl 5.16 re-rebuild of bootstrapped packages
perl-CPAN-Meta-Requirements.spec |5 -
1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
---
diff --git a/perl-CPAN-Meta-Requirements.spec b/perl-CPAN-Meta-Requirements.spec
index 961b3c1..39a7b7b 100644
--- a/perl-CPAN-Meta-Requirements.spec
+++ b/perl-CPAN-Meta-Requirements.spec
@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
Name: perl-CPAN-Meta-Requirements
Version:2.122
-Release:3%{?dist}
+Release:4%{?dist}
Summary:Set of version requirements for a CPAN dist
License:GPL+ or Artistic
Group: Development/Libraries
@@ -74,6 +74,9 @@ make test TEST_FILES=t/*.t xt/*/*.t
%{_mandir}/man3/*
%changelog
+* Tue Jul 10 2012 Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com - 2.122-4
+- Perl 5.16 re-rebuild of bootstrapped packages
+
* Wed Jun 06 2012 Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com - 2.122-3
- Perl 5.16 rebuild
--
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-Digest-SHA] Perl 5.16 re-rebuild of bootstrapped packages
commit 06379588227f6ac69bb46b073027f93ff0e22cd6
Author: Petr Písař ppi...@redhat.com
Date: Tue Jul 10 15:08:48 2012 +0200
Perl 5.16 re-rebuild of bootstrapped packages
perl-Digest-SHA.spec |5 -
1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
---
diff --git a/perl-Digest-SHA.spec b/perl-Digest-SHA.spec
index 47cc33c..00d91a1 100644
--- a/perl-Digest-SHA.spec
+++ b/perl-Digest-SHA.spec
@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
Name: perl-Digest-SHA
Epoch: 1
Version:5.71
-Release:3%{?dist}
+Release:4%{?dist}
Summary:Perl extension for SHA-1/224/256/384/512
License:GPL+ or Artistic
Group: Development/Libraries
@@ -60,6 +60,9 @@ make test
%{_mandir}/man3/*
%changelog
+* Tue Jul 10 2012 Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com - 1:5.71-4
+- Perl 5.16 re-rebuild of bootstrapped packages
+
* Wed Jun 06 2012 Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com - 1:5.71-3
- Perl 5.16 rebuild
--
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-Dancer] Perl 5.16 re-rebuild of bootstrapped packages
commit d0fb8ec30cbc66881229f6c5eb62ae15c3aee81c
Author: Petr Písař ppi...@redhat.com
Date: Tue Jul 10 15:10:17 2012 +0200
Perl 5.16 re-rebuild of bootstrapped packages
perl-Dancer.spec |5 -
1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
---
diff --git a/perl-Dancer.spec b/perl-Dancer.spec
index e0d3888..57e1b50 100644
--- a/perl-Dancer.spec
+++ b/perl-Dancer.spec
@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
Name: perl-Dancer
Version:1.3095
-Release:2%{?dist}
+Release:3%{?dist}
Summary:Lightweight yet powerful web application framework
License:GPL+ or Artistic
Group: Development/Libraries
@@ -107,6 +107,9 @@ make test
%{_mandir}/man3/*
%changelog
+* Tue Jul 10 2012 Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com - 1.3095-3
+- Perl 5.16 re-rebuild of bootstrapped packages
+
* Sat Jun 30 2012 Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com - 1.3095-2
- Perl 5.16 rebuild
--
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-Sub-Install] Perl 5.16 re-rebuild of bootstrapped packages
commit 5159f422dc5ae843026609d0a2907e6f0621dce1
Author: Petr Písař ppi...@redhat.com
Date: Tue Jul 10 15:10:13 2012 +0200
Perl 5.16 re-rebuild of bootstrapped packages
perl-Sub-Install.spec |5 -
1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
---
diff --git a/perl-Sub-Install.spec b/perl-Sub-Install.spec
index 25a52f3..58fc82e 100644
--- a/perl-Sub-Install.spec
+++ b/perl-Sub-Install.spec
@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
Name: perl-Sub-Install
Version:0.926
-Release:2%{?dist}
+Release:3%{?dist}
Summary:Install subroutines into packages easily
License:GPL+ or Artistic
Group: Development/Libraries
@@ -56,6 +56,9 @@ rm -rf %{buildroot}
%{_mandir}/man3/*
%changelog
+* Tue Jul 10 2012 Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com - 0.926-3
+- Perl 5.16 re-rebuild of bootstrapped packages
+
* Sun Jun 10 2012 Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com - 0.926-2
- Perl 5.16 rebuild
--
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-Test-Requires] Perl 5.16 re-rebuild of bootstrapped packages
commit 4461b9f28828a35ec80a3c96350ce9247af06ff6
Author: Petr Písař ppi...@redhat.com
Date: Tue Jul 10 15:15:08 2012 +0200
Perl 5.16 re-rebuild of bootstrapped packages
perl-Test-Requires.spec |5 -
1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
---
diff --git a/perl-Test-Requires.spec b/perl-Test-Requires.spec
index 1f0c298..8ea4c57 100644
--- a/perl-Test-Requires.spec
+++ b/perl-Test-Requires.spec
@@ -4,7 +4,7 @@
Name: perl-Test-Requires
Summary: Checks to see if a given module can be loaded
Version: 0.06
-Release: 5%{?dist}
+Release: 6%{?dist}
License: GPL+ or Artistic
Group: Development/Libraries
URL: http://search.cpan.org/dist/Test-Requires
@@ -67,6 +67,9 @@ rm -rf %{buildroot}
%{_mandir}/man3/Test::Requires.3pm*
%changelog
+* Tue Jul 10 2012 Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com - 0.06-6
+- Perl 5.16 re-rebuild of bootstrapped packages
+
* Tue Jun 12 2012 Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com - 0.06-5
- Perl 5.16 rebuild
--
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-SQL-Statement] Perl 5.16 re-rebuild of bootstrapped packages
commit 2e777cdab7da0f4c41b216088151e43fcb3572f7
Author: Petr Písař ppi...@redhat.com
Date: Tue Jul 10 15:15:17 2012 +0200
Perl 5.16 re-rebuild of bootstrapped packages
perl-SQL-Statement.spec |5 -
1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
---
diff --git a/perl-SQL-Statement.spec b/perl-SQL-Statement.spec
index e4a559e..efbee9d 100644
--- a/perl-SQL-Statement.spec
+++ b/perl-SQL-Statement.spec
@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
Name: perl-SQL-Statement
Version:1.33
-Release:7%{?dist}
+Release:8%{?dist}
Summary:SQL parsing and processing engine
Group: Development/Libraries
@@ -78,6 +78,9 @@ rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
%changelog
+* Tue Jul 10 2012 Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com - 1.33-8
+- Perl 5.16 re-rebuild of bootstrapped packages
+
* Sun Jun 17 2012 Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com - 1.33-7
- Perl 5.16 rebuild
--
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-Any-Moose] Perl 5.16 re-rebuild of bootstrapped packages
commit ec033a1ae0098e9f510d927e237f18817260e03a
Author: Petr Písař ppi...@redhat.com
Date: Tue Jul 10 15:16:45 2012 +0200
Perl 5.16 re-rebuild of bootstrapped packages
perl-Any-Moose.spec |5 -
1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
---
diff --git a/perl-Any-Moose.spec b/perl-Any-Moose.spec
index 49fd55c..12489f0 100644
--- a/perl-Any-Moose.spec
+++ b/perl-Any-Moose.spec
@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
Name: perl-Any-Moose
Summary:Use Moose or Mouse automagically
Version:0.18
-Release:4%{?dist}
+Release:5%{?dist}
License:GPL+ or Artistic
Group: Development/Libraries
Source0:
http://search.cpan.org/CPAN/authors/id/S/SA/SARTAK/Any-Moose-%{version}.tar.gz
@@ -61,6 +61,9 @@ make test
%{_mandir}/man3/*.3*
%changelog
+* Tue Jul 10 2012 Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com - 0.18-5
+- Perl 5.16 re-rebuild of bootstrapped packages
+
* Fri Jun 22 2012 Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com - 0.18-4
- Perl 5.16 rebuild
--
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-AnyEvent] Perl 5.16 re-rebuild of bootstrapped packages
commit 5ebef85c842e8323ee0bad03769ea4486ae02538
Author: Petr Písař ppi...@redhat.com
Date: Tue Jul 10 15:17:14 2012 +0200
Perl 5.16 re-rebuild of bootstrapped packages
perl-AnyEvent.spec |5 -
1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
---
diff --git a/perl-AnyEvent.spec b/perl-AnyEvent.spec
index 789ddbd..ea8ed8c 100644
--- a/perl-AnyEvent.spec
+++ b/perl-AnyEvent.spec
@@ -5,7 +5,7 @@
Name: perl-AnyEvent
Version:7.01
-Release:2%{?dist}
+Release:3%{?dist}
Summary:Framework for multiple event loops
Group: Development/Libraries
License:GPL+ or Artistic
@@ -119,6 +119,9 @@ make test
%changelog
+* Tue Jul 10 2012 Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com - 7.01-3
+- Perl 5.16 re-rebuild of bootstrapped packages
+
* Thu Jun 14 2012 Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com - 7.01-2
- Perl 5.16 rebuild
--
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-Package-Generator] Perl 5.16 re-rebuild of bootstrapped packages
commit 7ad8c535b61a60d7f2e045206d84ec5c62bb18c4
Author: Petr Písař ppi...@redhat.com
Date: Tue Jul 10 15:17:47 2012 +0200
Perl 5.16 re-rebuild of bootstrapped packages
perl-Package-Generator.spec |5 -
1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
---
diff --git a/perl-Package-Generator.spec b/perl-Package-Generator.spec
index 6f170b4..faac008 100644
--- a/perl-Package-Generator.spec
+++ b/perl-Package-Generator.spec
@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
Name: perl-Package-Generator
Version: 0.103
-Release: 10%{?dist}
+Release: 11%{?dist}
Summary: Generate new packages quickly and easily
License: GPL+ or Artistic
Group: Development/Libraries
@@ -57,6 +57,9 @@ rm -rf %{buildroot}
%{_mandir}/man3/Package::Reaper.3pm*
%changelog
+* Tue Jul 10 2012 Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com - 0.103-11
+- Perl 5.16 re-rebuild of bootstrapped packages
+
* Tue Jun 12 2012 Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com - 0.103-10
- Perl 5.16 rebuild
--
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-DateTime-TimeZone] Perl 5.16 re-rebuild of bootstrapped packages
commit e92a6104325f1ead59a6b0569ad8df6ab6d94c59
Author: Petr Písař ppi...@redhat.com
Date: Tue Jul 10 15:18:37 2012 +0200
Perl 5.16 re-rebuild of bootstrapped packages
perl-DateTime-TimeZone.spec |5 -
1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
---
diff --git a/perl-DateTime-TimeZone.spec b/perl-DateTime-TimeZone.spec
index a69c749..75c27f8 100644
--- a/perl-DateTime-TimeZone.spec
+++ b/perl-DateTime-TimeZone.spec
@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
Name: perl-DateTime-TimeZone
Version:1.46
-Release:2%{?dist}
+Release:3%{?dist}
Summary:Time zone object base class and factory
License:GPL+ or Artistic
Group: Development/Libraries
@@ -76,6 +76,9 @@ make test
%{_mandir}/man3/*
%changelog
+* Tue Jul 10 2012 Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com - 1.46-3
+- Perl 5.16 re-rebuild of bootstrapped packages
+
* Wed Jun 20 2012 Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com - 1.46-2
- Perl 5.16 rebuild
--
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-Test-EOL] Perl 5.16 re-rebuild of bootstrapped packages
commit c79a3eb32fb99e806da005e928b53b0264b5a85a
Author: Petr Písař ppi...@redhat.com
Date: Tue Jul 10 15:21:18 2012 +0200
Perl 5.16 re-rebuild of bootstrapped packages
perl-Test-EOL.spec |5 -
1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
---
diff --git a/perl-Test-EOL.spec b/perl-Test-EOL.spec
index e9a67fb..1aeb532 100644
--- a/perl-Test-EOL.spec
+++ b/perl-Test-EOL.spec
@@ -3,7 +3,7 @@
Name: perl-Test-EOL
Version: 1.3
-Release: 2%{?dist}
+Release: 3%{?dist}
Summary: Check the correct line endings in your project
Group: Development/Libraries
License: GPL+ or Artistic
@@ -61,6 +61,9 @@ rm -rf %{buildroot}
%{_mandir}/man3/Test::EOL.3pm*
%changelog
+* Tue Jul 10 2012 Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com - 1.3-3
+- Perl 5.16 re-rebuild of bootstrapped packages
+
* Thu Jun 28 2012 Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com - 1.3-2
- Perl 5.16 rebuild
--
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-Archive-Tar] Perl 5.16 re-rebuild of bootstrapped packages
commit 10b6f3139b4513ba6b910f5a86897278335d23f5
Author: Petr Písař ppi...@redhat.com
Date: Tue Jul 10 15:22:55 2012 +0200
Perl 5.16 re-rebuild of bootstrapped packages
perl-Archive-Tar.spec |5 -
1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
---
diff --git a/perl-Archive-Tar.spec b/perl-Archive-Tar.spec
index ddff58b..ede09a3 100644
--- a/perl-Archive-Tar.spec
+++ b/perl-Archive-Tar.spec
@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
Name: perl-Archive-Tar
Version:1.88
-Release:3%{?dist}
+Release:4%{?dist}
Summary:A module for Perl manipulation of .tar files
Group: Development/Libraries
License:GPL+ or Artistic
@@ -66,6 +66,9 @@ make test
%changelog
+* Tue Jul 10 2012 Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com - 1.88-4
+- Perl 5.16 re-rebuild of bootstrapped packages
+
* Wed Jun 06 2012 Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com - 1.88-3
- Perl 5.16 rebuild
--
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-Devel-Symdump] Perl 5.16 re-rebuild of bootstrapped packages
commit b3e9231a1df4a61accb9673985e02c7678ec83dc
Author: Petr Písař ppi...@redhat.com
Date: Tue Jul 10 15:24:18 2012 +0200
Perl 5.16 re-rebuild of bootstrapped packages
perl-Devel-Symdump.spec |5 -
1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
---
diff --git a/perl-Devel-Symdump.spec b/perl-Devel-Symdump.spec
index f566490..bc8eb8e 100644
--- a/perl-Devel-Symdump.spec
+++ b/perl-Devel-Symdump.spec
@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
Name: perl-Devel-Symdump
Version:2.08
-Release:9%{?dist}
+Release:10%{?dist}
Epoch: 1
Summary:A Perl module for inspecting Perl's symbol table
Group: Development/Libraries
@@ -49,6 +49,9 @@ rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
%{_mandir}/man3/Devel::Symdump.3pm*
%changelog
+* Tue Jul 10 2012 Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com - 1:2.08-10
+- Perl 5.16 re-rebuild of bootstrapped packages
+
* Sun Jun 10 2012 Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com - 1:2.08-9
- Perl 5.16 rebuild
--
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
