Re: Revamping the non responsive maintainer process
Dne 6.11.2012 16:04, Ralf Corsepius napsal(a): On 11/06/2012 02:24 PM, Vít Ondruch wrote: Dne 6.11.2012 14:17, Aleksandar Kurtakov napsal(a): - Original Message - From: Vít Ondruch vondr...@redhat.com To: devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Sent: Tuesday, November 6, 2012 2:56:18 PM Subject: Re: Revamping the non responsive maintainer process So give me the permission [1] as well as the others who requested it before me. Apparently the current owner doesn't care. You can compare the version history in koji [2] and [3] and if he doesn't care about one package, it is reasonable to doubt that the other packages will be in better state. The problem here is that pkgdb requests are not auto approved after some timeout period if the maintainer hasn't reacted. That would be sweet if it would be auto approved. Do you want a backdoor permitting all script kidz and overzealous, but unexperienced newcomers to automatically take over packages? Come on, there are the same alarmist who think that Wikipedia will be hijacked and destroyed but have it happened any time? You are still maintainer, you are still owner and you are notified by email about every change in your package, so you'll be able to catch such activity pretty soon and act accordingly. I regret having to say so, but the unpleasant fact is, Fedora does have such participants. Such people are everywhere. May be they can trick the system, become proven packager and takeover you packages. Who knows. You can never be sure. When I do not react upon requests, I appreciate you swiftly react upon request, but unfortunately that does not imply that every other packager will react as swiftly as you. I usually either missed or forgot about the request or deliberately do not yet want to approve. That said, what I feel is missing in Fedora's pkgdb web-forms is an option to leave a comment to applicant and an some automated reminder mechanisms to remind approvers about pending requests. There is bugzilla, but it is definitely not the most flexible tool on the world. Ralf -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Revamping the non responsive maintainer process
Dne 6.11.2012 16:40, Marcela Mašláňová napsal(a): On 11/06/2012 04:32 PM, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote: On 11/06/2012 01:07 PM, Marcela Mašláňová wrote: Oh no, you are top posting again ;-) Could you create fesco ticket for this package? I proposed usage of the script in Johann's ticket https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/967#comment:7 Imho it might be better to give acl to more people, then only punish developers. If that's the plan why not drop the ownership model ( a.k.a dictatorship model ) all together so everyone can contribute to every package? If the answer to the above is no we cant/wont do that then we need proper cleanup process to punish developer as you put it failing to understand that packagers/maintainers aren't' the only one in the community dealing with packages ( QA,Releng,Infra etc )... JBG The dictatorship is there to safe us from reckless changes. If you want to be sure, there should be some code review tool in the process, which would allow pear reviews of commits, e.g. if approved packager commits something into package he does not own/maintain, the commit would need to go through peer-review, but any other packager could be the peer. Moreover every reckless change can be reverted. Vit If Fedora allow everyone to patch everything, then we have to check packagers more thoroughly than give them a few reviews usually of one language. I safe my comments for tomorrows FESCo because we probably can't reach consensus. Marcela -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Revamping the non responsive maintainer process
On Wed, 2012-11-07 at 09:49 +0100, Vít Ondruch wrote: You are still maintainer, you are still owner and you are notified by email about every change in your package, so you'll be able to catch such activity pretty soon and act accordingly. To be the devil's advocate, you do get the email but most of the time right after the commit the person will push an update which you're not able to withdraw as you did not create it. Plus sometime, people takes days off... Yeah, changes can be reverted but epoch sucks! I do like the idea of some kind of per-review. Either the official maintainer approve the changes or say two other maintainers do. But there should be at minimal some time between the change in the spec and the build of the new package. Pierre -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Rawhide
Dne 7.11.2012 08:08, Dan Horák napsal(a): Jesse Keating píše v Út 06. 11. 2012 v 10:48 -0800: On 11/06/2012 03:35 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote: And rel-engs actively prohibits staging as much as they can [1], where it should be encouraged IMO. Vit [1] https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/4580 Additional tags have a high cost to the infrastructure and every user of said infrastructure. It creates more newRepo tasks which take significant time to complete, and since they are resource intensive only a few can be done at once. This means that newRepo tasks get delayed farther and people waiting for buildroot updates have to wait longer, and longer, and longer. This is why extra tags/roots are used sparingly for more intensive updates than what you're requesting here. but there is a solution - learn koji use multiple repos, in cases like this one you will have one repo that is tied to fX tag (large, but changed only when fedora changes) and another to the side tag (this will be very small one, can be changed more often), koji will then generate a mock config with 2 repos and you are done Dan In combination with https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/acls/name/createrepo_c it would be outstanding. Vit -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Revamping the non responsive maintainer process
Dne 7.11.2012 09:52, Vít Ondruch napsal(a): Dne 6.11.2012 16:40, Marcela Mašláňová napsal(a): On 11/06/2012 04:32 PM, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote: On 11/06/2012 01:07 PM, Marcela Mašláňová wrote: Oh no, you are top posting again ;-) Could you create fesco ticket for this package? I proposed usage of the script in Johann's ticket https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/967#comment:7 Imho it might be better to give acl to more people, then only punish developers. If that's the plan why not drop the ownership model ( a.k.a dictatorship model ) all together so everyone can contribute to every package? If the answer to the above is no we cant/wont do that then we need proper cleanup process to punish developer as you put it failing to understand that packagers/maintainers aren't' the only one in the community dealing with packages ( QA,Releng,Infra etc )... JBG The dictatorship is there to safe us from reckless changes. If you want to be sure, there should be some code review tool in the process, which would allow pear reviews * of course it should be peer review ;) of commits, e.g. if approved packager commits something into package he does not own/maintain, the commit would need to go through peer-review, but any other packager could be the peer. Moreover every reckless change can be reverted. Vit If Fedora allow everyone to patch everything, then we have to check packagers more thoroughly than give them a few reviews usually of one language. I safe my comments for tomorrows FESCo because we probably can't reach consensus. Marcela -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Revamping the non responsive maintainer process
Dne 7.11.2012 10:00, Pierre-Yves Chibon napsal(a): On Wed, 2012-11-07 at 09:49 +0100, Vít Ondruch wrote: You are still maintainer, you are still owner and you are notified by email about every change in your package, so you'll be able to catch such activity pretty soon and act accordingly. To be the devil's advocate, you do get the email but most of the time right after the commit the person will push an update which you're not able to withdraw as you did not create it. Yes, update in Bodhi. It takes 7 days to go through review. If it cannot be withdrawen by maintainer or lets say proven packager, then it can be improved. Plus sometime, people takes days off... Yes, and if you did mistake before you go to holidays, then what? You can always find some drawbacks with any process, but it doesn't mean that we should not be more open and trust your peers. Yeah, changes can be reverted but epoch sucks! I do like the idea of some kind of per-review. Either the official maintainer approve the changes or say two other maintainers do. But there should be at minimal some time between the change in the spec and the build of the new package. Pierre -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Revamping the non responsive maintainer process
On 11/07/2012 09:49 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote: Dne 6.11.2012 16:04, Ralf Corsepius napsal(a): On 11/06/2012 02:24 PM, Vít Ondruch wrote: Dne 6.11.2012 14:17, Aleksandar Kurtakov napsal(a): - Original Message - From: Vít Ondruch vondr...@redhat.com To: devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Sent: Tuesday, November 6, 2012 2:56:18 PM Subject: Re: Revamping the non responsive maintainer process So give me the permission [1] as well as the others who requested it before me. Apparently the current owner doesn't care. You can compare the version history in koji [2] and [3] and if he doesn't care about one package, it is reasonable to doubt that the other packages will be in better state. The problem here is that pkgdb requests are not auto approved after some timeout period if the maintainer hasn't reacted. That would be sweet if it would be auto approved. Do you want a backdoor permitting all script kidz and overzealous, but unexperienced newcomers to automatically take over packages? Come on, there are the same alarmist who think that Wikipedia will be hijacked and destroyed but have it happened any time? Well, you might not be aware about it, but at least de.wikipedia.org does have similiar problems as we are discussing here. You are still maintainer, you are still owner and you are notified by email about every change in your package, so you'll be able to catch such activity pretty soon and act accordingly. You get notified when the damage is done, e.g. when your spec file has been modified to your dissatisfaction and when the package already has entered rawhide. All that's left to you unless these changes immediately break something, is to either silently swallow these changes or to revert them sometime later. I usually either missed or forgot about the request or deliberately do not yet want to approve. That said, what I feel is missing in Fedora's pkgdb web-forms is an option to leave a comment to applicant and an some automated reminder mechanisms to remind approvers about pending requests. There is bugzilla, but it is definitely not the most flexible tool on the world. Wrt. bugzilla, similar considerations apply: BZ-mails are sent out once and therefore are easy to forget/miss. Ralf -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Revamping the non responsive maintainer process
On Wed, 2012-11-07 at 10:12 +0100, Vít Ondruch wrote: Dne 7.11.2012 10:00, Pierre-Yves Chibon napsal(a): On Wed, 2012-11-07 at 09:49 +0100, Vít Ondruch wrote: You are still maintainer, you are still owner and you are notified by email about every change in your package, so you'll be able to catch such activity pretty soon and act accordingly. To be the devil's advocate, you do get the email but most of the time right after the commit the person will push an update which you're not able to withdraw as you did not create it. Yes, update in Bodhi. It takes 7 days to go through review. If it cannot be withdrawen by maintainer or lets say proven packager, then it can be improved. Plus sometime, people takes days off... Yes, and if you did mistake before you go to holidays, then what? Id'think that's also why we have updates-testing You can always find some drawbacks with any process, but it doesn't mean that we should not be more open and trust your peers. Agreed. I was more playing the devil's advocate as I know the situation has happened before. People modified a spec thinking that was the way to go, the maintainer who had the bigger picture was away and the changes had to be reverted and the package got an epoch. Pierre -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Revamping the non responsive maintainer process
Dne 7.11.2012 10:21, Ralf Corsepius napsal(a): On 11/07/2012 09:49 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote: Dne 6.11.2012 16:04, Ralf Corsepius napsal(a): On 11/06/2012 02:24 PM, Vít Ondruch wrote: Dne 6.11.2012 14:17, Aleksandar Kurtakov napsal(a): - Original Message - From: Vít Ondruch vondr...@redhat.com To: devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Sent: Tuesday, November 6, 2012 2:56:18 PM Subject: Re: Revamping the non responsive maintainer process So give me the permission [1] as well as the others who requested it before me. Apparently the current owner doesn't care. You can compare the version history in koji [2] and [3] and if he doesn't care about one package, it is reasonable to doubt that the other packages will be in better state. The problem here is that pkgdb requests are not auto approved after some timeout period if the maintainer hasn't reacted. That would be sweet if it would be auto approved. Do you want a backdoor permitting all script kidz and overzealous, but unexperienced newcomers to automatically take over packages? Come on, there are the same alarmist who think that Wikipedia will be hijacked and destroyed but have it happened any time? Well, you might not be aware about it, but at least de.wikipedia.org does have similiar problems as we are discussing here. You are still maintainer, you are still owner and you are notified by email about every change in your package, so you'll be able to catch such activity pretty soon and act accordingly. You get notified when the damage is done Definitely, we are not in age of Minority Report yet, but even Pre-crime had its issues. , e.g. when your spec file has been modified to your dissatisfaction and when the package already has entered rawhide. All that's left to you unless these changes immediately break something, is to either silently swallow these changes or to revert them sometime later. I usually either missed or forgot about the request or deliberately do not yet want to approve. That said, what I feel is missing in Fedora's pkgdb web-forms is an option to leave a comment to applicant and an some automated reminder mechanisms to remind approvers about pending requests. There is bugzilla, but it is definitely not the most flexible tool on the world. Wrt. bugzilla, similar considerations apply: BZ-mails are sent out once and therefore are easy to forget/miss. Ralf -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
[Test-Announce] 2012-11-07 @ 17:00 UTC - F18 Beta Blocker Bug Review #7
# F18 Beta Blocker Review meeting #7 # Date: 2012-11-07 # Time: 17:00 UTC # Location: #fedora-qa on irc.freenode.net Note: The UTC time was changed. If your country switched from summer time to winter time the last weekend, your local time of the meeting should stay the same. Keeping with what we've done for the last couple of weeks, we're planning to stop around the 3 hour mark if we're not done by then and resume on 2012-11-08. We'll be running through the beta blockers and nice-to-haves. The current list of blocker bugs is available at: http://qa.fedoraproject.org/blockerbugs/current We'll be reviewing the bugs to determine ... 1. Whether they meet the Beta release criteria [1] and should stay on the list 2. Whether they are getting the attention they need [1] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_18_Beta_Release_Criteria For guidance on Blocker and Nice-to-have (NTH) bugs, please refer to - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_blocker_bug_process - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_nth_bug_process For the blocker review meeting protocol, see - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_Blocker_Bug_Meeting ___ test-announce mailing list test-annou...@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test-announce -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
F-18 Branched report: 20121107 changes
Compose started at Wed Nov 7 09:15:33 UTC 2012 Broken deps for x86_64 -- [dhcp-forwarder] dhcp-forwarder-upstart-0.10-1801.fc18.noarch requires /sbin/initctl [dnf] dnf-0.2.14-2.git4831982.fc18.noarch requires python-hawkey = 0:0.3.0 [dustmite] dustmite-1-5.20120304gitcde46e0.fc17.x86_64 requires libphobos-ldc.so.59()(64bit) [func] func-0.28-1.fc17.noarch requires smolt [gcc-python-plugin] gcc-python2-debug-plugin-0.9-5.fc18.x86_64 requires gcc = 0:4.7.2-2.fc18 gcc-python2-plugin-0.9-5.fc18.x86_64 requires gcc = 0:4.7.2-2.fc18 gcc-python3-debug-plugin-0.9-5.fc18.x86_64 requires gcc = 0:4.7.2-2.fc18 gcc-python3-plugin-0.9-5.fc18.x86_64 requires gcc = 0:4.7.2-2.fc18 [gdb-heap] gdb-heap-0.5-9.fc18.x86_64 requires glibc(x86-64) = 0:2.15 [gnome-do-plugins] gnome-do-plugins-banshee-0.8.4-10.fc18.x86_64 requires mono(Banshee.CollectionIndexer) = 0:2.4.0.0 [gnome-shell-theme-selene] gnome-shell-theme-selene-3.4.0-5.fc18.noarch requires gnome-shell-extensions-user-theme [ip-sentinel] ip-sentinel-upstart-0.12-1303.fc18.noarch requires /sbin/initctl [libsyncml] 1:libsyncml-0.4.6-4.fc17.i686 requires libsoup-2.2.so.8 1:libsyncml-0.4.6-4.fc17.x86_64 requires libsoup-2.2.so.8()(64bit) [mapserver] mapserver-perl-6.0.1-5.fc17.x86_64 requires perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.14.2) [milter-greylist] milter-greylist-upstart-4.2.7-1701.fc18.noarch requires /sbin/initctl [mod_pubcookie] mod_pubcookie-3.3.4a-7.fc18.x86_64 requires httpd-mmn = 0:20051115-x86-64 [openvrml] libopenvrml-0.18.9-3.fc18.i686 requires libboost_thread-mt.so.1.48.0 libopenvrml-0.18.9-3.fc18.i686 requires libboost_system-mt.so.1.48.0 libopenvrml-0.18.9-3.fc18.i686 requires libboost_filesystem-mt.so.1.48.0 libopenvrml-0.18.9-3.fc18.x86_64 requires libboost_thread-mt.so.1.48.0()(64bit) libopenvrml-0.18.9-3.fc18.x86_64 requires libboost_system-mt.so.1.48.0()(64bit) libopenvrml-0.18.9-3.fc18.x86_64 requires libboost_filesystem-mt.so.1.48.0()(64bit) libopenvrml-gl-0.18.9-3.fc18.i686 requires libboost_thread-mt.so.1.48.0 libopenvrml-gl-0.18.9-3.fc18.i686 requires libboost_system-mt.so.1.48.0 libopenvrml-gl-0.18.9-3.fc18.i686 requires libboost_filesystem-mt.so.1.48.0 libopenvrml-gl-0.18.9-3.fc18.x86_64 requires libboost_thread-mt.so.1.48.0()(64bit) libopenvrml-gl-0.18.9-3.fc18.x86_64 requires libboost_system-mt.so.1.48.0()(64bit) libopenvrml-gl-0.18.9-3.fc18.x86_64 requires libboost_filesystem-mt.so.1.48.0()(64bit) openvrml-java-0.18.9-3.fc18.x86_64 requires libboost_thread-mt.so.1.48.0()(64bit) openvrml-java-0.18.9-3.fc18.x86_64 requires libboost_system-mt.so.1.48.0()(64bit) openvrml-java-0.18.9-3.fc18.x86_64 requires libboost_filesystem-mt.so.1.48.0()(64bit) openvrml-javascript-0.18.9-3.fc18.x86_64 requires libboost_thread-mt.so.1.48.0()(64bit) openvrml-javascript-0.18.9-3.fc18.x86_64 requires libboost_system-mt.so.1.48.0()(64bit) openvrml-javascript-0.18.9-3.fc18.x86_64 requires libboost_filesystem-mt.so.1.48.0()(64bit) openvrml-nodes-0.18.9-3.fc18.x86_64 requires libboost_thread-mt.so.1.48.0()(64bit) openvrml-nodes-0.18.9-3.fc18.x86_64 requires libboost_system-mt.so.1.48.0()(64bit) openvrml-nodes-0.18.9-3.fc18.x86_64 requires libboost_filesystem-mt.so.1.48.0()(64bit) openvrml-xembed-0.18.9-3.fc18.x86_64 requires libboost_thread-mt.so.1.48.0()(64bit) openvrml-xembed-0.18.9-3.fc18.x86_64 requires libboost_system-mt.so.1.48.0()(64bit) openvrml-xembed-0.18.9-3.fc18.x86_64 requires libboost_filesystem-mt.so.1.48.0()(64bit) [perl-Hardware-Verilog-Parser] perl-Hardware-Verilog-Parser-0.13-9.fc17.noarch requires perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.14.2) [perl-OpenOffice-UNO] perl-OpenOffice-UNO-0.07-3.fc17.x86_64 requires perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.14.2) [presence] presence-0.4.6-2.fc18.x86_64 requires libcogl.so.9()(64bit) [pyfuzzy] pyfuzzy-0.1.0-5.fc18.noarch requires antlr3-python [reciteword] reciteword-0.8.4-10.fc18.x86_64 requires esound [resource-agents] resource-agents-3.9.2-3.fc18.5.x86_64 requires libplumbgpl.so.2()(64bit) resource-agents-3.9.2-3.fc18.5.x86_64 requires libplumb.so.2()(64bit) [ruby-revolution] ruby-revolution-0.5-4.svn210.fc18.15.x86_64 requires libedataserver-1.2.so.16()(64bit) ruby-revolution-0.5-4.svn210.fc18.15.x86_64 requires libecal-1.2.so.12()(64bit) ruby-revolution-0.5-4.svn210.fc18.15.x86_64 requires libebook-1.2.so.13()(64bit) [rubygem-activeldap] rubygem-activeldap-1.2.2-3.fc17.noarch requires rubygem(gettext_activerecord) = 0:2.1.0 rubygem-activeldap-1.2.2-3.fc17.noarch requires ruby(abi) = 0:1.8 [rubygem-calendar_date_select]
Unblocking packages: new review needed?
I have requested Release Engineering to unblock some packages, which previously had been blocked on some branches: https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/5387 I have been told that those packages must be reviewed again in order to be unblocked. I'm not 100% sure of what to do. Do I have to open a new review request on Bugzilla for each package from scratch (i.e., exactly as if they were completely new)? Are there any further steps I must take? Thank you in advance. M.M. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Self-introduction
Greetings! I'd like to introduce myself to the group before I get to work packaging the Release Notes. I've been a contributor to the Documentation Group for several years, including serving as the team lead for Fedora 17 and 18. Eventually, there are a few other packages I'd like to maintain, but that will require some extra time. My non-Fedora activities working as a de facto project manager for a scientific computing service at Purdue University and pursuing an MS in IT Project Management. -- Ben Cotton -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Unblocking packages: new review needed?
Sound very strange, it is not some kind orphan package, there have been out of Fedora and has to re-enter. It it an active maintained package in F17, there just have not worked with latest version for gnome-shell, because they change the way themes works in every release. It a waste of reviewers time to have to review such a package again IMHO. Tim On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 2:57 PM, M.M. hal8...@hotmail.it wrote: I have requested Release Engineering to unblock some packages, which previously had been blocked on some branches: https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/5387 I have been told that those packages must be reviewed again in order to be unblocked. I'm not 100% sure of what to do. Do I have to open a new review request on Bugzilla for each package from scratch (i.e., exactly as if they were completely new)? Are there any further steps I must take? Thank you in advance. M.M. -- 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
Anything changed on rawhide builders recently? Can't build ladvd
Hi, Today I tried to build ladvd 1.0.4 package for rawhide, but it failed with some strange message http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/getfile?taskID=4662562name=build.logoffset=-4000 , which is pasted below. So I rolled back to 1.0.2 and it failed to build, too. It was building fine previously. Then I tried to build for F18, it was built succesfuly (although it packaging ultimately failed because of unrelated reason). So the question is: what's broken with rawhide builders? The message on rawhide builder is: #v+ libtool: compile: gcc -std=gnu99 -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -Wall -Werror -Wformat -Wformat-security -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fno-delete-null-pointer-checks -fstack-protector -O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions -fstack-protector --param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -m32 -march=i686 -mtune=atom -fasynchronous-unwind-tables -c child.c -fPIC -DPIC -o .libs/child.o In file included from cli.c:20:0: common.h:152:8: error: redefinition of 'struct sysinfo' In file included from /usr/include/linux/kernel.h:4:0, from /usr/include/linux/sysctl.h:25, from /usr/include/sys/sysctl.h:43, from common.h:50, from cli.c:20: /usr/include/linux/sysinfo.h:7:8: note: originally defined here make[2]: *** [cli.lo] Error 1 make[2]: *** Waiting for unfinished jobs In file included from child.c:20:0: common.h:152:8: error: redefinition of 'struct sysinfo' In file included from /usr/include/linux/kernel.h:4:0, from /usr/include/linux/sysctl.h:25, from /usr/include/sys/sysctl.h:43, from common.h:50, from child.c:20: /usr/include/linux/sysinfo.h:7:8: note: originally defined here make[2]: *** [child.lo] Error 1 In file included from util.c:20:0: common.h:152:8: error: redefinition of 'struct sysinfo' In file included from /usr/include/linux/kernel.h:4:0, from /usr/include/linux/sysctl.h:25, from /usr/include/sys/sysctl.h:43, from common.h:50, from util.c:20: /usr/include/linux/sysinfo.h:7:8: note: originally defined here In file included from master.c:20:0: common.h:152:8: error: redefinition of 'struct sysinfo' In file included from /usr/include/linux/kernel.h:4:0, from /usr/include/linux/sysctl.h:25, from /usr/include/sys/sysctl.h:43, from common.h:50, from master.c:20: /usr/include/linux/sysinfo.h:7:8: note: originally defined here make[2]: Leaving directory `/builddir/build/BUILD/ladvd-1.0.4/src' make[2]: *** [master.lo] Error 1 make[2]: *** [util.lo] Error 1 make[1]: *** [all] Error 2 make[1]: Leaving directory `/builddir/build/BUILD/ladvd-1.0.4/src' make: *** [all-recursive] Error 1 #v- -- Tomasz Torcz RIP is irrevelant. Spoofing is futile. xmpp: zdzich...@chrome.pl Your routes will be aggreggated. -- Alex Yuriev -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Unblocking packages: new review needed?
On 2012-11-07 15:47, tim.laurid...@gmail.com wrote: Sound very strange, it is not some kind orphan package, there have been out of Fedora and has to re-enter. It it an active maintained package in F17, there just have not worked with latest version for gnome-shell, because they change the way themes works in every release. It a waste of reviewers time to have to review such a package again IMHO. Tim On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 2:57 PM, M.M. hal8...@hotmail.it mailto:hal8...@hotmail.it wrote: I have requested Release Engineering to unblock some packages, which previously had been blocked on some branches: https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/5387 I have been told that those packages must be reviewed again in order to be unblocked. I'm not 100% sure of what to do. Do I have to open a new review request on Bugzilla for each package from scratch (i.e., exactly as if they were completely new)? Are there any further steps I must take? Thank you in advance. M.M. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org mailto:devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel No top-posting in fedora-devel :) Besides that, I can just agree with Tim. The oldest package was reviewed less than a year ago, the two others last summer. Requiring a new review is, well, somewhat formal. That said, it should be easy to review these to resolve this issue. If you just make some new review requests, linking to the previous review I'll guess this could be handled without to much problems. --alec -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Revamping the non responsive maintainer process
Vít Ondruch wrote: Come on, there are the same alarmist who think that Wikipedia will be hijacked and destroyed but have it happened any time? Edit wars often break out on Wikipedia. That's not something I would like to see in Fedora. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Lamest_edit_wars Also, mistakes on Wikipedia are unlikely to cause widespread breakage of users' work environments or insert backdoors into lots of computers all over the world. Björn Persson -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: New release cycle proposal (was Rolling release model philosophy (was ...))
Am 06.11.2012 19:48, schrieb Peter Lemenkov: Hello All. 2012/11/6 Matthieu Gautier mgaut...@fedoraproject.org: For example, if we start from Fedora20 at beginning of 2014: - Fedora20(jan 2014) is a stable release. (Fedora18 eol, actual way of doing) - Fedora21Preview(jul 2014) is an unstable release. (Fedora 19 eol) - Fedora21(jan 2015) is a stable release. (Fedora21Preview eol, new way of doing) - Fedora22Preview(jul 2015) - Fedora22(jan 2016) (Fedora22Preview and Fedora20 eol) - Fedora23Preview(jul 2016) - Fedora23(jan 2017) (Fedora23Preview and Fedora21 eol) So you not a maintainer but you still suggesting that we, maintainers, should do 2 times more job by supporting several simultaneous Fedora versions instead of 3 right now for more than two years. And that's all just because you think it's a good idea to spend my personal time on the rreleases I'm not using anymore it would be enough to push LARGE changes like UsrMove / systemd / grub2 only every SECOND release as we current have and the following release should bring only smaller changes and PLOISH the features of the last release this way you would even have LESS work and pressure and the distribution would become more stable and bugfree at all becasue currently sometimes people do simply now know where to start and how to finish because the next BIG change is starting and a half year is very short signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Anything changed on rawhide builders recently? Can't build ladvd
On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 10:05 AM, Tomasz Torcz to...@pipebreaker.pl wrote: Hi, Today I tried to build ladvd 1.0.4 package for rawhide, but it failed with some strange message http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/getfile?taskID=4662562name=build.logoffset=-4000 , which is pasted below. So I rolled back to 1.0.2 and it failed to build, too. It was building fine previously. Then I tried to build for F18, it was built succesfuly (although it packaging ultimately failed because of unrelated reason). So the question is: what's broken with rawhide builders? The kernel-headers package is newer and includes the UAPI split done by David Howells. The message on rawhide builder is: #v+ libtool: compile: gcc -std=gnu99 -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -Wall -Werror -Wformat -Wformat-security -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fno-delete-null-pointer-checks -fstack-protector -O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions -fstack-protector --param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -m32 -march=i686 -mtune=atom -fasynchronous-unwind-tables -c child.c -fPIC -DPIC -o .libs/child.o In file included from cli.c:20:0: common.h:152:8: error: redefinition of 'struct sysinfo' In file included from /usr/include/linux/kernel.h:4:0, from /usr/include/linux/sysctl.h:25, from /usr/include/sys/sysctl.h:43, from common.h:50, from cli.c:20: /usr/include/linux/sysinfo.h:7:8: note: originally defined here make[2]: *** [cli.lo] Error 1 So it seems ladvd has carried a redefinition of struct sysinfo basically forever. They could have very well named it ladvd_sysinfo or something and that might work as a temporary patch, but I think there is a bigger issue going on here. It seems that /usr/include/sys/sysctl.h has been doing a bit of ifdefery to prevent inclusion of certain header files from the kernel. That header file is provided by glibc. In it, you can see things like: #include stddef.h /* Prevent more kernel headers than necessary to be included. */ #ifndef _LINUX_KERNEL_H # define _LINUX_KERNEL_H1 # define __undef_LINUX_KERNEL_H #endif ... #include linux/sysctl.h #ifdef __undef_LINUX_KERNEL_H # undef _LINUX_KERNEL_H # undef __undef_LINUX_KERNEL_H #endif That works with kernel-headers from = the 3.6 kernel, but the UAPI rework has redefined the header guards for a number of files, including linux/kernel.h. That file is now specifically guarded by: #ifndef _UAPI_LINUX_KERNEL_H #define _UAPI_LINUX_KERNEL_H which means the tests glibc is doing above are failing. David, any thoughts on what the general solution to that would be? josh -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Unblocking packages: new review needed?
On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 10:07 AM, Alec Leamas leamas.a...@gmail.com wrote: No top-posting in fedora-devel :) Sorry :) Besides that, I can just agree with Tim. The oldest package was reviewed less than a year ago, the two others last summer. Requiring a new review is, well, somewhat formal. That said, it should be easy to review these to resolve this issue. If you just make some new review requests, linking to the previous review I'll guess this could be handled without to much problems. I don't see anywhere in http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_Review_Process That a new review is needed, Reviews are currently done for totally new packages, package renameshttp://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_Renaming_Process#Re-review_required, and packages merged from the old Fedora Core repository. I don't see this case, fits any of the cases. Tim -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Rawhide
On 11/07/2012 01:02 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote: Dne 7.11.2012 08:08, Dan Horák napsal(a): Jesse Keating píše v Út 06. 11. 2012 v 10:48 -0800: On 11/06/2012 03:35 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote: And rel-engs actively prohibits staging as much as they can [1], where it should be encouraged IMO. Vit [1] https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/4580 Additional tags have a high cost to the infrastructure and every user of said infrastructure. It creates more newRepo tasks which take significant time to complete, and since they are resource intensive only a few can be done at once. This means that newRepo tasks get delayed farther and people waiting for buildroot updates have to wait longer, and longer, and longer. This is why extra tags/roots are used sparingly for more intensive updates than what you're requesting here. but there is a solution - learn koji use multiple repos, in cases like this one you will have one repo that is tied to fX tag (large, but changed only when fedora changes) and another to the side tag (this will be very small one, can be changed more often), koji will then generate a mock config with 2 repos and you are done Dan In combination with https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/acls/name/createrepo_c it would be outstanding. Vit If the solution was so simple, don't you think it would have been solved long ago? The majority of time isn't spent in the createrepo task, it's in the database queries to figure out through inheritance what all builds should be in that createrepo run. That's what puts stress on the entire system. -- Help me fight child abuse: http://tinyurl.com/jlkcourage - jlk -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Unblocking packages: new review needed?
On 2012-11-07 16:53, tim.laurid...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 10:07 AM, Alec Leamas leamas.a...@gmail.com mailto:leamas.a...@gmail.com wrote: No top-posting in fedora-devel :) Sorry :) Besides that, I can just agree with Tim. The oldest package was reviewed less than a year ago, the two others last summer. Requiring a new review is, well, somewhat formal. That said, it should be easy to review these to resolve this issue. If you just make some new review requests, linking to the previous review I'll guess this could be handled without to much problems. I don't see anywhere in http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_Review_Process That a new review is needed, Reviews are currently done for totally new packages, package renames http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_Renaming_Process#Re-review_required, and packages merged from the old Fedora Core repository. I don't see this case, fits any of the cases. Tim It might be that you are right, dunno, this is just so weird. My point is just that three simple reviews might be less work than to discuss this until there is a Proper Solution. --alec -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Unblocking packages: new review needed?
On Wed, 07 Nov 2012 16:59:19 +0100 Alec Leamas leamas.a...@gmail.com wrote: It might be that you are right, dunno, this is just so weird. My point is just that three simple reviews might be less work than to discuss this until there is a Proper Solution. The guideline is: If the package is Retired in pkgdb, in general it needs a re-review. (Sometimes exceptions are made right after the per cycle mass retirement for things that were mistakenly retired, etc). If it's Orphaned you can just take ownership and go on. I'll look at fixing the wiki kevin signature.asc Description: PGP signature -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Unblocking packages: new review needed?
On Wed, 2012-11-07 at 16:59 +0100, Alec Leamas wrote: On 2012-11-07 16:53, tim.laurid...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 10:07 AM, Alec Leamas leamas.a...@gmail.com Besides that, I can just agree with Tim. The oldest package was reviewed less than a year ago, the two others last summer. Requiring a new review is, well, somewhat formal. That said, it should be easy to review these to resolve this issue. If you just make some new review requests, linking to the previous review I'll guess this could be handled without to much problems. I don't see anywhere in http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_Review_Process That a new review is needed, It might be that you are right, dunno, this is just so weird. My point is just that three simple reviews might be less work than to discuss this until there is a Proper Solution. This is what you are looking for: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Orphaned_package_that_need_new_maintainers#Claiming_Ownership_of_a_Deprecated_Package especially: Deprecated packages require re-review if they are deprecated for more than two weeks or if there is no previous review of the package. Submit a review request (a new bugzilla ticket) and have the package approved by a reviewer as if it were new to Fedora. See the package review process for more information. Pierre -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Schedule for Wednesday's FESCo Meeting (2012-11-07)
Following is the list of topics that will be discussed in the FESCo meeting Wednesday at 18:00UTC (1:00pm EST) in #fedora-meeting on irc.freenode.net. Links to all tickets below can be found at: https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/report/9 = Followups = #topic #960 F18 schedule + the holidays .fesco 960 https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/960 - this will be discussed together with the proposal: #topic #968 Move F18 release to no more than March 2013 .fesco 968 https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/968 = New business = #topic #966 Fedora 19 Schedule proposal (DRAFT!) .fesco 966 https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/966 #topic #967 Proposal for automated Fedora packaging cleanup policy. .fesco 967 https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/967 = Open Floor = For more complete details, please visit each individual ticket. The report of the agenda items can be found at https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/report/9 If you would like to add something to this agenda, you can reply to this e-mail, file a new ticket at https://fedorahosted.org/fesco, e-mail me directly, or bring it up at the end of the meeting, during the open floor topic. Note that added topics may be deferred until the following meeting. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Anything changed on rawhide builders recently? Can't build ladvd
Tomasz Torcz to...@pipebreaker.pl wrote:
In file included from cli.c:20:0:
common.h:152:8: error: redefinition of 'struct sysinfo'
In file included from /usr/include/linux/kernel.h:4:0,
from /usr/include/linux/sysctl.h:25,
from /usr/include/sys/sysctl.h:43,
from common.h:50,
from cli.c:20:
/usr/include/linux/sysinfo.h:7:8: note: originally defined here
The attached patch to the kernel should fix this. The problem is that many of
the userspace API files all got their guards renamed inside of the kernel when
they got split out into separate files (rather than being renamed).
A better way to do this might be to make the header installation discard the
_UAPI prefix that got added.
David
---
commit 24d4756373d825c43c5f5c3cf1fc6737943abf53
Author: David Howells dhowe...@redhat.com
Date: Wed Nov 7 16:40:14 2012 +
UAPI: The guards on linux/types.h and linxu/kernel.h are used by glibc
The guards on linux/types.h and linux/kernel.h are used by glibc, and so
shouldn't have been changed for the UAPI variants of those headers. Change
those guards back and alter the ones on the KAPI variants instead.
Interestingly, sys/sysctl.h shows checks on linux/list.h and
linux/compiler.h,
even though those headers aren't exported.
Signed-off-by: David Howells dhowe...@redhat.com
diff --git a/include/linux/kernel.h b/include/linux/kernel.h
index a123b13..e0e6839 100644
--- a/include/linux/kernel.h
+++ b/include/linux/kernel.h
@@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
-#ifndef _LINUX_KERNEL_H
-#define _LINUX_KERNEL_H
+#ifndef _KAPI_LINUX_KERNEL_H
+#define _KAPI_LINUX_KERNEL_H
#include stdarg.h
diff --git a/include/linux/types.h b/include/linux/types.h
index 1cc0e4b..1e99075 100644
--- a/include/linux/types.h
+++ b/include/linux/types.h
@@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
-#ifndef _LINUX_TYPES_H
-#define _LINUX_TYPES_H
+#ifndef _KAPI_LINUX_TYPES_H
+#define _KAPI_LINUX_TYPES_H
#define __EXPORTED_HEADERS__
#include uapi/linux/types.h
@@ -212,4 +212,4 @@ struct callback_head {
#define rcu_head callback_head
#endif /* __ASSEMBLY__ */
-#endif /* _LINUX_TYPES_H */
+#endif /* _KAPI_LINUX_TYPES_H */
diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/kernel.h b/include/uapi/linux/kernel.h
index 321e399..642d1e9 100644
--- a/include/uapi/linux/kernel.h
+++ b/include/uapi/linux/kernel.h
@@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
-#ifndef _UAPI_LINUX_KERNEL_H
-#define _UAPI_LINUX_KERNEL_H
+#ifndef _LINUX_KERNEL_H
+#define _LINUX_KERNEL_H
#include linux/sysinfo.h
@@ -10,4 +10,4 @@
#define __ALIGN_KERNEL_MASK(x, mask) (((x) + (mask)) ~(mask))
-#endif /* _UAPI_LINUX_KERNEL_H */
+#endif /* _LINUX_KERNEL_H */
diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/types.h b/include/uapi/linux/types.h
index acf0979..a9b87a8 100644
--- a/include/uapi/linux/types.h
+++ b/include/uapi/linux/types.h
@@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
-#ifndef _UAPI_LINUX_TYPES_H
-#define _UAPI_LINUX_TYPES_H
+#ifndef _LINUX_TYPES_H
+#define _LINUX_TYPES_H
#include asm/types.h
@@ -53,4 +53,4 @@ typedef __u32 __bitwise __wsum;
#define __aligned_le64 __le64 __attribute__((aligned(8)))
#endif /* __ASSEMBLY__ */
-#endif /* _UAPI_LINUX_TYPES_H */
+#endif /* _LINUX_TYPES_H */
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Anything changed on rawhide builders recently? Can't build ladvd
David Howells dhowe...@redhat.com wrote:
A better way to do this might be to make the header installation discard the
_UAPI prefix that got added.
As the attached patch.
David
---
commit 75a88e14a97d239a47cbd0fc55fc23416007d733
Author: David Howells dhowe...@redhat.com
Date: Wed Nov 7 17:14:14 2012 +
UAPI: Strip the _UAPI prefix from header guards during header installation
Strip the _UAPI prefix from header guards during header installation so that
any userspace dependencies aren't affected. glibc, for example, checks for
linux/types.h, linux/kernel.h, linux/compiler.h and linux/list.h - though
the
last two aren't actually exported.
Signed-off-by: David Howells dhowe...@redhat.com
diff --git a/scripts/headers_install.pl b/scripts/headers_install.pl
index 239d22d..6c353ae 100644
--- a/scripts/headers_install.pl
+++ b/scripts/headers_install.pl
@@ -42,6 +42,9 @@ foreach my $filename (@files) {
$line =~ s/(^|\s)(inline)\b/$1__$2__/g;
$line =~ s/(^|\s)(asm)\b(\s|[(]|$)/$1__$2__$3/g;
$line =~ s/(^|\s|[(])(volatile)\b(\s|[(]|$)/$1__$2__$3/g;
+ $line =~ s/#ifndef _UAPI/#ifndef /;
+ $line =~ s/#define _UAPI/#define /;
+ $line =~ s!#endif /[*] _UAPI!#endif /* !;
printf {$out} %s, $line;
}
close $out;
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora ARM weekly status meeting 2012-11-07
Good day all, This weeks Fedora ARM status meeting will take place today (Wednesday Nov 7th) in #fedora-meeting-1 on Freenode. Times in various time zones (please let us know if these do not work): PDT: 1pm MDT: 2pm CDT: 3pm EDT: 4pm UTC: 8pm BST: 9pm CST: 10pm Current items on the agenda: 1) F18/19 build status - problem packages? 2) F18 Beta Release Criteria 3) selinux - boot issue with kernel-3.6.4-1+ when in enforcing 4) FUDCon Lawrence - who's attending, planning ARM activities 5) Your topic here If you have any other items you would like to discuss that are not mentioned, please feel free to send an email to the list or bring it up at the end of the meeting. Paul -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Fedora ARM weekly status meeting 2012-11-07
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 11/07/2012 01:51 PM, Paul Whalen wrote: Good day all, This weeks Fedora ARM status meeting will take place today (Wednesday Nov 7th) in #fedora-meeting-1 on Freenode. Times in various time zones (please let us know if these do not work): PDT: 1pm MDT: 2pm CDT: 3pm EDT: 4pm UTC: 8pm BST: 9pm CST: 10pm Current items on the agenda: 1) F18/19 build status - problem packages? 2) F18 Beta Release Criteria 3) selinux - boot issue with kernel-3.6.4-1+ when in enforcing 4) FUDCon Lawrence - who's attending, planning ARM activities 5) Your topic here If you have any other items you would like to discuss that are not mentioned, please feel free to send an email to the list or bring it up at the end of the meeting. Paul What was the SELinux issue? rpm -q selinux-policy -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://www.enigmail.net/ iEYEARECAAYFAlCavS8ACgkQrlYvE4MpobPdEQCfZMBUp7d7RK4plOL6w8YvpRnw g20AoL98naX5s475eHGzNj01yfzbvaSm =vI05 -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
[Test-Announce] Fedora 18 Beta to slip by two weeks, Beta release date is now Nov 27
Today at FESCo meeting [1] it was decided to slip Fedora 18 Beta release by *two* weeks to give the Installer team, the new upgrade tool and Secure Boot time to finish and polish these features to meet our release quality standards. As a result, Fedora 18 Beta will be pushed out by two weeks, the development is re-opened, with tentative Change Deadline on Nov 13. Fedora 18 Beta release is now Nov 27. Anyone with objections to enter Beta freeze on Nov 13 can file a ticket with FESCo on the Nov 12/13 and it will be discussed in the ticket or on special meeting. Final Change deadline is rescheduled to Dec 18 with final Fedora 18 release on 2013 Jan 08 [2]. The Go/No-Go meeting on Thursday, Nov 08 is cancelled. Please, work on your blocker bugs and help testing the Fedora 18, so we will be able to release in the beginning of January. [1] http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2012-11-07/fesco.2012-11-07-18.00.log.html [2] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/18/Schedule Thanks Jaroslav ___ test-announce mailing list test-annou...@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test-announce -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora ARM weekly status meeting minutes 2012-11-07
Good day all, Thanks to those who were able to join us for the weekly status meeting today. For those that were unable, the minutes are posted below: Minutes: http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2012-11-07/fedora-meeting-1.2012-11-07-21.00.html Minutes (text): http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2012-11-07/fedora-meeting-1.2012-11-07-21.00.txt Log: http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2012-11-07/fedora-meeting-1.2012-11-07-21.00.log.html Paul -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Review swaps for Audio spin
Hi all I have a number of outstanding reviews that we are hoping to inlcude on the audio spin media. All are fairly trivial so shouldn't take too much time. giada - an audio looper for jack https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=866156 python-mididings - a MIDI router and processor in python/python3 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=866183 drumkv1 - an LV2 / standalone sampler https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870184 thanks Brendan -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Rawhide
Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mail...@laposte.net a écrit: Le Lun 5 novembre 2012 10:45, Dodji Seketeli a écrit : Just having a dedicated Rawhide Swat Team of die hard volunteers who could spot issues early, file more bugs, gently push for fixes in Rawhide and last but not least build a kind of esprit de corps among those who suffer Rawhide breakages for the greater good would be a great start, IMHO. There is already a pool of rawhide users. I know, I am one those. And I feel alone. Us poor Rawhide users could Unite, communicate, heck, commiserate! At least on a psychological standpoint, that'd be a progress, IMHO. Rawhide bugs are already reported. I haven't said that no Rawhide bugs were reported. You know what, I got some Rawhide bugs fixed by maintainers who don't seem to be running Rawhide themselves. And I find that a good step already. Just having a little bit more of that could be nice. I see this Fedora business as a best-effort, love-ridden task. I don't think the kind of problem we are talking about can be solved by a magical formula; so I am inclined to accept any improvement, even tiny little ones. :-) The problem is not here, I respectfully disagree. A part of the problem could be addressed by having a more organized and visible group of Rawhiders who can help each other, grow the group by inspiring more Fedora Hackers to join, help follow the status of particular bugs that are filled, etc ... the problem is maintainers that deliberately ignore bugs with rawhide in them (usual excuse and motto are Rawhide eats babies, I'll test when Rawhide is more stable, no empathy for other maintainers that can not test because your problem is breaking their test process). I obviously agree with you that this is a problem. Of course. One could say that the root cause of the problem is that these maintainers don't have enough time to advance both their short term agendas (hack on the features they are aiming for), and the medium to long term agenda of the Greater Community. We can argue about this endlessly. And we can also start getting those who are already Rawhiders to unite, try to help themselves and promote their view as something good for the general interest of our community at large. All the systemd problems were reported in Rawhide way before they hit branched. If they did hit branched it's not because reporting was lacking, but because there was a lack of social pressure not to let Rawhide rot (with easily predictable consequences). I don't know if *all* of systemd problems were reported, and am not going to argue about it. But I know that the systemd issues that temporarily prevented me to boot Rawhide at some point got resolved (indirectly at least) in Rawhide. I think there is room to be optimistic without requiring every single Fedora developer to run Rawhide. If at some point we could have one developer per group working on critical packages (e.g, one developer of the kernel group, one of GNOME, one for base os stuff, one for the virt subsystem, etc) to be in the Rawhide Swat Team, it would be just *great*. Of course, those of us who want to run Rawhide w/o hacking on critical packages are welcome too, and they can be hugely helpful. And I like to believe that we could achieve that by mean of love. :) Cheers. -- Dodji -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Rawhide
Kevin Fenzi ke...@scrye.com a écrit: On Mon, 05 Nov 2012 10:45:00 +0100 Dodji Seketeli do...@seketeli.org wrote: ...snip... Could we have a rawhide-list for this? I know fighting proliferation of mailing list is a good thing, but practically speaking, being able to quickly scan a mailing list before doing a yum update can help a Rawhider evaluate in advance the odds of his risking to be unable to reboot his machine or not. :-) I thought about that, but I don't think another list is something do so lightly. How about rawhide folks add a [rawhide] to their email subjects here to make them easy to filter out/see. Right. That would work for me too. I'd personally love to see more signal here in this list. Go Rawhiders! :) -- Dodji -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: small tip regarding git branch bash prompt in F18/Rawhide
On Wed, 2012-08-22 at 16:12 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: Hey folks - just in case you haven't all figured this out yet, if you're using the neat little trick of putting a few lines in your ~/.bashrc so that when you're in a directory containing a git repo, the prompt will display what branch you're in, it'll stop working when you update to the latest git - 1.7.12 - in F18 or Rawhide. To fix it, you need to change: source /etc/bash_completion.d/git to: source /usr/share/doc/git-1.7.12/contrib/completion/git-prompt.sh because upstream split the prompt stuff out from the bash_completion script. Perhaps the git packagers could consider providing git-prompt.sh in a more permanent location, so we don't have to poke .bashrc every time the git version changes? Thanks! Heads up, everyone, it got moved again (from the last location in /etc/profile.d). Stay sharp at all times! Look both ways before crossing the street! Now you have to do: source /usr/share/git-core/contrib/completion/git-prompt.sh -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora http://www.happyassassin.net -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
headsup: ghc-7.4.2 and haskell-platform-2012.4 coming soon to rawhide
Hi, The Haskell SIG will soon be updating ghc to 7.4.2 and the just released haskell-platform-2012.4.0.0. At the same time there will be a big bunch of pending version updates for various Haskell packages. As usual this will require rebuilding all the packages. Apart from bugfixes, a nice feature of ghc-7.4.2 is ARM support for ghci and hence template-haskell - apart from shared-library support this will almost bring ARM ghc up to Tier 1 level support. The plan is to backport haskell-platform-2012.4 later to Fedora 18 updates, and maybe also haskell-platform-2012.2 to Fedora 17. Of course these would be done in separate Koji tags. Jens -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Fedora 18 Beta to slip by two weeks, Beta release date is now Nov 27
Jaroslav Reznik jreznik at redhat.com writes: Final Change deadline is rescheduled to Dec 18 with final Fedora 18 release on 2013 Jan 08 [2]. I know everyone is going to hate me for saying this, but wouldn't it make sense to just forget about F-18 and go for F-19 instead? After all, F-19 feature submission deadline will probably be only a few weeks after F-18 release (as it stands now, unless it slips again). -- Bojan -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Fedora 18 Beta to slip by two weeks, Beta release date is now Nov 27
Oh my goodness. This is the highest amount of slippage I've seen in quite some time. What is wrong with Fedora? The slippage is getting worse each and every single release. I love Fedora and all, but this is absolutely ridiculous... On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 7:52 PM, Bojan Smojver bo...@rexursive.com wrote: Jaroslav Reznik jreznik at redhat.com writes: Final Change deadline is rescheduled to Dec 18 with final Fedora 18 release on 2013 Jan 08 [2]. I know everyone is going to hate me for saying this, but wouldn't it make sense to just forget about F-18 and go for F-19 instead? After all, F-19 feature submission deadline will probably be only a few weeks after F-18 release (as it stands now, unless it slips again). -- Bojan -- 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: Fedora 18 Beta to slip by two weeks, Beta release date is now Nov 27
I dont think anything is wrong with Fedora, but I do think we need to have reasonable expectations for systems that are put together with lots of moving parts. Delays are not rediculous, they are just the nature of complex systems. Nobody is forcing anyone to hurt furry animals while the release is getting together. Its a little sad and dissapointing, but thats about it. I'm happy the QA team has enough sway to ensure that a release is sweet, and not rough-edged. I think people remember the rough edges way longer than the 'it just worked' stuff. :) On 8/11/12 12:37 PM, Conan Kudo (ニール・ゴンパ) wrote: Oh my goodness. This is the highest amount of slippage I've seen in quite some time. What is wrong with Fedora? The slippage is getting worse each and every single release. I love Fedora and all, but this is absolutely ridiculous... On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 7:52 PM, Bojan Smojver bo...@rexursive.com mailto:bo...@rexursive.com wrote: Jaroslav Reznik jreznik at redhat.com http://redhat.com writes: Final Change deadline is rescheduled to Dec 18 with final Fedora 18 release on 2013 Jan 08 [2]. I know everyone is going to hate me for saying this, but wouldn't it make sense to just forget about F-18 and go for F-19 instead? After all, F-19 feature submission deadline will probably be only a few weeks after F-18 release (as it stands now, unless it slips again). -- Bojan -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org mailto: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: Fedora 18 Beta to slip by two weeks, Beta release date is now Nov 27
On Wed, 2012-11-07 at 21:07 -0600, Conan Kudo (ニール・ゴンパ) wrote: Oh my goodness. This is the highest amount of slippage I've seen in quite some time. What is wrong with Fedora? The new anaconda UI and related features are more or less entirely the cause of the slip. Secure boot support is also not done yet (waiting on the signature for shim to get sorted out by legal), though I don't know whether FESCo yet absolutely decided that has to be in for Beta. The slippage is getting worse each and every single release. I love Fedora and all, but this is absolutely ridiculous... It isn't, if you look at the facts, the slips for the last few releases have been fairly similar and there's no pattern of them getting longer. This release is special because of the major anaconda change, which it's turning out after the fact could have been organized better (hindsight is 20/20). -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora http://www.happyassassin.net -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Attention, dependency fighters
In case anyone noticed minimal install got rather bigger between Alpha and Beta - I did too. And I finally got around to figuring out why and filing a bug: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=874378 long story short, it's firewalld. Its deps are pretty heavy for something that's supposed to be in minimal. I'm sure twoerner would welcome help in pruning the deps if it's possible. it should at least be possible for it not to depend on both pygobject2 and pygobject3, one would think :) -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora http://www.happyassassin.net -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Attention, dependency fighters
On Wed, Nov 07, 2012 at 07:56:30PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote: long story short, it's firewalld. Its deps are pretty heavy for something that's supposed to be in minimal. I'm sure twoerner would welcome help in pruning the deps if it's possible. it should at least be possible for it not to depend on both pygobject2 and pygobject3, one would think :) Maybe we could have a release criterion which states that the minimal install doesn't have anything which pulls in the X libraries (or Wayland)? That's not a _completely_ arbitrary line in the sand. Probably the issue here is just a matter of what goes in what subpackage. -- Matthew Miller ☁☁☁ Fedora Cloud Architect ☁☁☁ mat...@fedoraproject.org -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: network service fails to set wireless parameters.
On Tue, 2012-11-06 at 23:16 +0100, Björn Persson wrote: Dan Williams wrote: On Tue, 2012-11-06 at 21:47 +0100, Björn Persson wrote: I have a Wifi card that is supposed to be managed by the network service. The interface's IP addresses, prefixes, routes and all that get assigned correctly on boot, but the wireless parameters – mode, ESSID and channel – do not get assigned. I have to set those manually with the iwconfig command. I've had this card working before, but I've hacked the ifcfg file since then. (I've had lots of networking problems since I installed Fedora 17, so I've been editing the configuration a lot.) It's possible that I've missed something, so before I file a bug report I wanted to ask: Does anyone see anything wrong with the ifcfg file below? Is NetworkManager enabled? Run systemctl status NetworkManager.service to find out; it looks like this connection is supposed to be managed by NetworkManager. Network Manager is enabled and running, but it manages only one of my three physical interfaces. I tried letting it manage this one, but then the interface sometimes got its address on boot, and sometimes not. Apparently there was some race condition. After I set NM_CONTROLLED=no it behaves consistently, only the wireless parameters don't get set. Could be because your wifi adapter is a recent one, and thus uses the preferred upstream nl80211 kernel configuration API. The iwconfig tool, which is what the initscripts (and thus the old network service) use, speaks the WEXT kernel configuration API which doesn't work well for newer devices. Things are getting moved to nl80211. In addition, the wext api of operation 1, then operation 2, then operation 3 simply doesn't work well for newer devices, and never worked very well for old ones, and it's possible that the driver for your wifi device doesn't like the sequence that the initscripts use. Which is why WEXT was a bad API in the first place. Using wpa_supplicant is the preferred mechanism for controlling wifi devices these days. That all said, I'm curious why NM isn't reliable in your case. Logging from /var/log/messages usually elucidates any problems. Dan -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Fedora 18 Beta to slip by two weeks, Beta release date is now Nov 27
On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 5:55 AM, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote: On Wed, 2012-11-07 at 21:07 -0600, Conan Kudo (ニール・ゴンパ) wrote: Oh my goodness. This is the highest amount of slippage I've seen in quite some time. What is wrong with Fedora? The new anaconda UI and related features are more or less entirely the cause of the slip. Secure boot support is also not done yet (waiting on the signature for shim to get sorted out by legal), though I don't know whether FESCo yet absolutely decided that has to be in for Beta. The slippage is getting worse each and every single release. I love Fedora and all, but this is absolutely ridiculous... It isn't, if you look at the facts, the slips for the last few releases have been fairly similar and there's no pattern of them getting longer. This release is special because of the major anaconda change, which it's turning out after the fact could have been organized better (hindsight is 20/20). Has anyone (FESCo) considered pushing Anaconda rewrite to F19 and ship F18 w/ the old Anaconda? I just tried the latest TC and while Anaconda did give me a working F18 installation, the experience is still rather raw (Can't say the I met major bugs, though). ... With all the testing resources pushing toward Anaconda, its very likely that breakage in (many) other components may go unnoticed. - Gilboa -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Fedora 18 Beta to slip by two weeks, Beta release date is now Nov 27
Conan Kudo (ニール・ゴンパ) wrote: Oh my goodness. This is the highest amount of slippage I've seen in quite some time. What is wrong with Fedora? The slippage is getting worse each and every single release. I love Fedora and all, but this is absolutely ridiculous... One factor is that QA has become stricter (and testing has improved). E.g., in the past, the KDE spin didn't even have to work at all! The criteria for the GNOME (Desktop) spin have also become much tighter. Of course delivering something that actually works takes time. I don't believe going back to just shipping what's there on release day even if it has major defects is a good idea. Another factor is that the Anaconda developers are doing more and more risky changes, we had the storage rewrite recently, and now in F18 there's the UI rewrite (which also touches the storage code yet again, along with much other backend code, it's not a UI-only change). Kevin Kofler -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Fedora 18 Beta to slip by two weeks, Beta release date is now Nov 27
Adam Williamson wrote: The new anaconda UI and related features are more or less entirely the cause of the slip. This shows that those changes should not have been done, or at least not in this way. Secure boot support is also not done yet (waiting on the signature for shim to get sorted out by legal), though I don't know whether FESCo yet absolutely decided that has to be in for Beta. And Restricted Boot support just needs to go away! Kevin Kofler -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Review Swap: ownCloud Server
Kevin Fenzi wrote: Note that there is negative time to achieve this f18 feature, that has moved to target f19. ;) IMHO, given how this is a new package which isn't going to break anything else, this is a perfect candidate for a late feature exception. Kevin Kofler -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Review Swap: ownCloud Server
On Thu, Nov 08, 2012 at 06:50:02AM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote: Note that there is negative time to achieve this f18 feature, that has moved to target f19. ;) IMHO, given how this is a new package which isn't going to break anything else, this is a perfect candidate for a late feature exception. And given the extra time with the newly-slipped schedule, it could even be tested reasonably well before release. -- Matthew Miller ☁☁☁ Fedora Cloud Architect ☁☁☁ mat...@fedoraproject.org -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Fedora 18 Beta to slip by two weeks, Beta release date is now Nov 27
On Thu, Nov 08, 2012 at 06:31:20AM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote: Adam Williamson wrote: The new anaconda UI and related features are more or less entirely the cause of the slip. This shows that those changes should not have been done, or at least not in this way. It turns out that software development is hard. It's especially hard when you have a hugely complicated system with no central management and no real incentive for most of the skilled workers to cooperate on sections of the project that influence each other. It's nigh-near impossible when you have the same set of people tasked to simultaneously stabalise an upcoming release and do the development work for the forthcoming release. The miracle isn't that Anaconda is taking longer than desirable. It's that it's as close to finished as it is. Secure boot support is also not done yet (waiting on the signature for shim to get sorted out by legal), though I don't know whether FESCo yet absolutely decided that has to be in for Beta. And Restricted Boot support just needs to go away! Sure, who wants new computers. -- Matthew Garrett | mj...@srcf.ucam.org -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Fedora 18 Beta to slip by two weeks, Beta release date is now Nov 27
I've now done half a dozen F18 multi-boot installs and I must say it's a miracle I haven't over-written something I wanted to keep. The thing that would make it usable for me would be very simple - just put the partition names on the labeling so I know what's going to end up where! The rest of the installer is fine but the partitioner needs either a user interface redesign or extensive documentation. On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 9:31 PM, Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at wrote: Adam Williamson wrote: The new anaconda UI and related features are more or less entirely the cause of the slip. This shows that those changes should not have been done, or at least not in this way. Secure boot support is also not done yet (waiting on the signature for shim to get sorted out by legal), though I don't know whether FESCo yet absolutely decided that has to be in for Beta. And Restricted Boot support just needs to go away! Kevin Kofler -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel -- Twitter: http://twitter.com/znmeb; Computational Journalism Publishers Workbench: http://znmeb.github.com/Computational-Journalism-Publishers-Workbench/ How the Hell can the lion sleep with all those people singing A weem oh way! at the top of their lungs? -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Fedora 18 Beta to slip by two weeks, Beta release date is now Nov 27
On Thu, 2012-11-08 at 07:04 +0200, Gilboa Davara wrote: On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 5:55 AM, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote: On Wed, 2012-11-07 at 21:07 -0600, Conan Kudo (ニール・ゴンパ) wrote: Oh my goodness. This is the highest amount of slippage I've seen in quite some time. What is wrong with Fedora? The new anaconda UI and related features are more or less entirely the cause of the slip. Secure boot support is also not done yet (waiting on the signature for shim to get sorted out by legal), though I don't know whether FESCo yet absolutely decided that has to be in for Beta. The slippage is getting worse each and every single release. I love Fedora and all, but this is absolutely ridiculous... It isn't, if you look at the facts, the slips for the last few releases have been fairly similar and there's no pattern of them getting longer. This release is special because of the major anaconda change, which it's turning out after the fact could have been organized better (hindsight is 20/20). Has anyone (FESCo) considered pushing Anaconda rewrite to F19 and ship F18 w/ the old Anaconda? Yes. Several times. The last one just last week. We probably don't need to go over that again. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora http://www.happyassassin.net -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Fedora 18 Beta to slip by two weeks, Beta release date is now Nov 27
On Thu, 2012-11-08 at 06:31 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote: Adam Williamson wrote: The new anaconda UI and related features are more or less entirely the cause of the slip. This shows that those changes should not have been done, or at least not in this way. I think it's widely agreed by now that they could have been done better, the question is now exactly how we can improve the process. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora http://www.happyassassin.net -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Fedora 18 Beta to slip by two weeks, Beta release date is now Nov 27
On 8 Nov 2012 07:35, Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at wrote: Adam Williamson wrote: The new anaconda UI and related features are more or less entirely the cause of the slip. This shows that those changes should not have been done, or at least not in this way. Hindsight is a fabulous thing, I suspect the anaconda developers would agree with you looking back. Its a large body of code dependent on a lots of pieces. Secure boot support is also not done yet (waiting on the signature for shim to get sorted out by legal), though I don't know whether FESCo yet absolutely decided that has to be in for Beta. And Restricted Boot support just needs to go away! And with it will go Fedora's ability to support a lot of new hardware moving forward and I don't believe that's good for anyone. The developers have done a lot of work to make it easily handle a vast amount of use cases and I think its great the work they've done. The hardware is coming so its pointless for us to stick our heads in the sand. Besides this thread is a about beta slip. Not pros and cons of already approved feature. Peter Peter -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
File File-Find-Rule-Perl-1.13.tar.gz uploaded to lookaside cache by corsepiu
A file has been added to the lookaside cache for perl-File-Find-Rule-Perl: c3ee4f00f643f82fdb6f1cbcebfa90de File-Find-Rule-Perl-1.13.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-File-Find-Rule-Perl] Revert parts of previous changes.
commit 98fc3d1ce3202c394fc3fbf4a918538e6b754e5d
Author: Ralf Corsépius corse...@fedoraproject.org
Date: Wed Nov 7 09:14:23 2012 +0100
Revert parts of previous changes.
- Upstream update.
.gitignore|1 +
perl-File-Find-Rule-Perl.spec | 34 +-
sources |2 +-
3 files changed, 23 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
---
diff --git a/.gitignore b/.gitignore
index f439b26..eed2af6 100644
--- a/.gitignore
+++ b/.gitignore
@@ -1 +1,2 @@
/File-Find-Rule-Perl-1.12.tar.gz
+/File-Find-Rule-Perl-1.13.tar.gz
diff --git a/perl-File-Find-Rule-Perl.spec b/perl-File-Find-Rule-Perl.spec
index 453d4be..28081ae 100644
--- a/perl-File-Find-Rule-Perl.spec
+++ b/perl-File-Find-Rule-Perl.spec
@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
Name: perl-File-Find-Rule-Perl
-Version:1.12
-Release:6%{?dist}
+Version:1.13
+Release:1%{?dist}
Summary:Common rules for searching for Perl things
License:GPL+ or Artistic
Group: Development/Libraries
@@ -9,7 +9,6 @@ Source0:
http://search.cpan.org/CPAN/authors/id/A/AD/ADAMK/File-Find-Rule
Requires: perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_%(eval `perl -V:version`; echo $version))
BuildArch: noarch
BuildRequires: perl(constant)
-BuildRequires: perl(inc::Module::Install::DSL) = 1.00
BuildRequires: perl(lib)
BuildRequires: perl(Carp)
BuildRequires: perl(ExtUtils::MakeMaker)
@@ -18,7 +17,7 @@ BuildRequires: perl(File::Spec) = 0.82
BuildRequires: perl(File::Spec::Functions)
BuildRequires: perl(File::Spec::Unix)
BuildRequires: perl(Params::Util) = 0.38
-BuildRequires: perl(Parse::CPAN::Meta) = 0.04
+BuildRequires: perl(Parse::CPAN::Meta) = 1.38
BuildRequires: perl(Test::More) = 0.47
# For improved tests
%if !%{defined perl_bootstrap}
@@ -32,31 +31,40 @@ BuildRequires: perl(Test::CPAN::Meta) = 0.17
Common rules for searching for Perl things.
%prep
-%setup -q -n File-Find-Rule-Perl-%{version}
-rm -rf inc
+%setup -q -T -c
+%setup -q -T -D -a0
%build
-perl Makefile.PL INSTALLDIRS=vendor
+cd File-Find-Rule-Perl-%{version}
+%{__perl} Makefile.PL INSTALLDIRS=vendor
make %{?_smp_mflags}
+cd ..
%install
-make pure_install PERL_INSTALL_ROOT=%{buildroot}
-find %{buildroot} -type f -name .packlist -exec rm -f {} ';'
-find %{buildroot} -type d -depth -exec rmdir {} 2/dev/null ';'
-chmod -R u+w %{buildroot}/*
+cd File-Find-Rule-Perl-%{version}
+make pure_install PERL_INSTALL_ROOT=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT
+cd ..
+find $RPM_BUILD_ROOT -type f -name .packlist -exec rm -f {} ';'
+find $RPM_BUILD_ROOT -type d -depth -exec rmdir {} 2/dev/null ';'
+chmod -R u+w $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/*
%check
-rm -f debug*.list
%if !%{defined perl_bootstrap}
+cd File-Find-Rule-Perl-%{version}
make test AUTOMATED_TESTING=1
+cd ..
%endif
%files
-%doc Changes LICENSE
+%doc File-Find-Rule-Perl-%{version}/Changes
File-Find-Rule-Perl-%{version}/LICENSE
%{perl_vendorlib}/File
%{_mandir}/man3/*
%changelog
+* Wed Nov 07 2012 Ralf Corsépius corse...@fedoraproject.org - 1.13-1
+- Revert parts of previous changes.
+- Upstream update.
+
* Tue Oct 23 2012 Petr Šabata con...@redhat.com - 1.12-6
- Specify all dependencies
- Modernize specfile
diff --git a/sources b/sources
index facecd5..d5c7949 100644
--- a/sources
+++ b/sources
@@ -1 +1 @@
-91ce1937411b5fe60b9861b0bd7cf45a File-Find-Rule-Perl-1.12.tar.gz
+c3ee4f00f643f82fdb6f1cbcebfa90de File-Find-Rule-Perl-1.13.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-File-Find-Rule-Perl] Cleanup.
commit b12651a45c331946828f5a3e9b797e9f220e1a00 Author: Ralf Corsépius corse...@fedoraproject.org Date: Wed Nov 7 09:17:14 2012 +0100 Cleanup. .gitignore |1 - 1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) --- diff --git a/.gitignore b/.gitignore index eed2af6..3b83524 100644 --- a/.gitignore +++ b/.gitignore @@ -1,2 +1 @@ -/File-Find-Rule-Perl-1.12.tar.gz /File-Find-Rule-Perl-1.13.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-File-Find-Rule-Perl/f18] (3 commits) ...Cleanup.
Summary of changes: c6f6041... Modernize specfile (*) 98fc3d1... Revert parts of previous changes. (*) b12651a... Cleanup. (*) (*) This commit already existed in another branch; no separate mail sent -- Fedora Extras Perl SIG http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl perl-devel mailing list perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/perl-devel
[perl-File-Find-Rule-Perl/f17: 7/7] Merge cleanup.
commit b1c9eaad9a4b8ad665951f78c30cc309a93d4ae3 Author: Ralf Corsépius corse...@fedoraproject.org Date: Wed Nov 7 09:20:43 2012 +0100 Merge cleanup. perl-File-Find-Rule-Perl.spec |9 - 1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-) --- diff --git a/perl-File-Find-Rule-Perl.spec b/perl-File-Find-Rule-Perl.spec index 28081ae..8d0f67f 100644 --- a/perl-File-Find-Rule-Perl.spec +++ b/perl-File-Find-Rule-Perl.spec @@ -71,15 +71,6 @@ cd .. - Drop command macros - Fix mixed whitespace -* Fri Jul 20 2012 Fedora Release Engineering rel-...@lists.fedoraproject.org - 1.12-5 -- Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_18_Mass_Rebuild - -* Tue Jul 10 2012 Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com - 1.12-4 -- Perl 5.16 re-rebuild of bootstrapped packages - -* Tue Jun 12 2012 Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com - 1.12-3 -- Perl 5.16 rebuild - * Fri Jan 13 2012 Fedora Release Engineering rel-...@lists.fedoraproject.org - 1.12-2 - Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_17_Mass_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-File-Find-Rule-Perl/f16] (9 commits) ...Merge cleanup.
Summary of changes: 862c70b... - Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_17_Mass (*) a6b1a48... Perl 5.16 rebuild (*) 11d4c3b... Perl 5.16 re-rebuild of bootstrapped packages (*) 3b2149a... - Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_18_Mass (*) c6f6041... Modernize specfile (*) 98fc3d1... Revert parts of previous changes. (*) b12651a... Cleanup. (*) b1c9eaa... Merge cleanup. (*) 1b52fa9... Merge cleanup. (*) This commit already existed in another branch; no separate mail sent -- Fedora Extras Perl SIG http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl perl-devel mailing list perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/perl-devel
[perl-File-Find-Rule-Perl/f16: 9/9] Merge cleanup.
commit 1b52fa97e41088f688b756bd53a09517a97fa9e0 Author: Ralf Corsépius corse...@fedoraproject.org Date: Wed Nov 7 09:23:35 2012 +0100 Merge cleanup. perl-File-Find-Rule-Perl.spec |3 --- 1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) --- diff --git a/perl-File-Find-Rule-Perl.spec b/perl-File-Find-Rule-Perl.spec index 8d0f67f..89ea9c0 100644 --- a/perl-File-Find-Rule-Perl.spec +++ b/perl-File-Find-Rule-Perl.spec @@ -71,9 +71,6 @@ cd .. - Drop command macros - Fix mixed whitespace -* Fri Jan 13 2012 Fedora Release Engineering rel-...@lists.fedoraproject.org - 1.12-2 -- Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_17_Mass_Rebuild - * Fri Nov 25 2011 Ralf Corsépius corse...@fedoraproject.org - 1.12-1 - Upstream update. - Update BRs. -- 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-Unix-Syslog] Specify all dependencies
commit 469858bd79f110f6a1daee028b021e7151cfc01a
Author: Petr Písař ppi...@redhat.com
Date: Wed Nov 7 09:25:50 2012 +0100
Specify all dependencies
perl-Unix-Syslog.spec |8 +++-
1 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
---
diff --git a/perl-Unix-Syslog.spec b/perl-Unix-Syslog.spec
index 75d6279..883ec71 100644
--- a/perl-Unix-Syslog.spec
+++ b/perl-Unix-Syslog.spec
@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
Name: perl-Unix-Syslog
Version:1.1
-Release:11%{?dist}
+Release:12%{?dist}
Summary:Perl interface to the UNIX syslog(3) calls
License:Artistic 2.0
Group: Development/Libraries
@@ -8,6 +8,9 @@ URL:http://search.cpan.org/dist/Unix-Syslog/
Source0:
http://www.cpan.org/authors/id/M/MH/MHARNISCH/Unix-Syslog-%{version}.tar.gz
BuildRoot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
BuildRequires: perl(ExtUtils::MakeMaker)
+# Run-requires:
+BuildRequires: perl(DynaLoader)
+BuildRequires: perl(Exporter)
Requires: perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_%(eval `%{__perl} -V:version`; echo
$version))
%description
@@ -48,6 +51,9 @@ rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
%{_mandir}/man3/*
%changelog
+* Wed Nov 07 2012 Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com - 1.1-12
+- Specify all dependencies
+
* Fri Jul 20 2012 Fedora Release Engineering rel-...@lists.fedoraproject.org
- 1.1-11
- Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_18_Mass_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-Unix-Syslog] Do not export private library
commit 330c92090370839e2e0c92522f93a7a043a7fac3
Author: Petr Písař ppi...@redhat.com
Date: Wed Nov 7 09:27:22 2012 +0100
Do not export private library
perl-Unix-Syslog.spec |3 +++
1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
---
diff --git a/perl-Unix-Syslog.spec b/perl-Unix-Syslog.spec
index 883ec71..ee8be54 100644
--- a/perl-Unix-Syslog.spec
+++ b/perl-Unix-Syslog.spec
@@ -13,6 +13,8 @@ BuildRequires: perl(DynaLoader)
BuildRequires: perl(Exporter)
Requires: perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_%(eval `%{__perl} -V:version`; echo
$version))
+%{?perl_default_filter}
+
%description
This module provides an interface to the system logger syslogd(8) via
Perl's XSUBs. The implementation attempts to resemble the native libc-
@@ -53,6 +55,7 @@ rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
%changelog
* Wed Nov 07 2012 Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com - 1.1-12
- Specify all dependencies
+- Do not export private library
* Fri Jul 20 2012 Fedora Release Engineering rel-...@lists.fedoraproject.org
- 1.1-11
- Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_18_Mass_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-Unix-Syslog] Teach rpmlint
commit 5841467c4ed504c4e19da888c6f0927646948d1d Author: Petr Písař ppi...@redhat.com Date: Wed Nov 7 09:33:35 2012 +0100 Teach rpmlint .rpmlint |2 ++ 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) --- diff --git a/.rpmlint b/.rpmlint new file mode 100644 index 000..3f3998a --- /dev/null +++ b/.rpmlint @@ -0,0 +1,2 @@ +from Config import * +addFilter(spelling-error .* (libc|syslogd)); -- 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-Unix-Syslog] Modernize spec file
commit e6d0e82f9f44ac6cdd176e1d813c829c1733c92a
Author: Petr Písař ppi...@redhat.com
Date: Wed Nov 7 09:34:13 2012 +0100
Modernize spec file
perl-Unix-Syslog.spec | 12 +---
1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
---
diff --git a/perl-Unix-Syslog.spec b/perl-Unix-Syslog.spec
index ee8be54..28ce94d 100644
--- a/perl-Unix-Syslog.spec
+++ b/perl-Unix-Syslog.spec
@@ -6,7 +6,6 @@ License:Artistic 2.0
Group: Development/Libraries
URL:http://search.cpan.org/dist/Unix-Syslog/
Source0:
http://www.cpan.org/authors/id/M/MH/MHARNISCH/Unix-Syslog-%{version}.tar.gz
-BuildRoot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
BuildRequires: perl(ExtUtils::MakeMaker)
# Run-requires:
BuildRequires: perl(DynaLoader)
@@ -29,24 +28,15 @@ should be able to use this module right away.
make %{?_smp_mflags}
%install
-rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
-
-make pure_install PERL_INSTALL_ROOT=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT
-
+make pure_install DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT
find $RPM_BUILD_ROOT -type f -name .packlist -exec rm -f {} \;
find $RPM_BUILD_ROOT -type f -name '*.bs' -size 0 -exec rm -f {} \;
-find $RPM_BUILD_ROOT -depth -type d -exec rmdir {} 2/dev/null \;
-
%{_fixperms} $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/*
%check
%{?_with_check:make test}
-%clean
-rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
-
%files
-%defattr(-,root,root,-)
%doc Artistic Changes README
%{perl_vendorarch}/auto/*
%{perl_vendorarch}/Unix*
--
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-Unix-Syslog] Document reason for disabling tests
commit da5f78dde705b631ff7ce457f9b4281764bffb2d
Author: Petr Písař ppi...@redhat.com
Date: Wed Nov 7 09:35:29 2012 +0100
Document reason for disabling tests
perl-Unix-Syslog.spec |1 +
1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
---
diff --git a/perl-Unix-Syslog.spec b/perl-Unix-Syslog.spec
index 28ce94d..455ee17 100644
--- a/perl-Unix-Syslog.spec
+++ b/perl-Unix-Syslog.spec
@@ -34,6 +34,7 @@ find $RPM_BUILD_ROOT -type f -name '*.bs' -size 0 -exec rm -f
{} \;
%{_fixperms} $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/*
%check
+# Tests require accessible syslog
%{?_with_check:make test}
%files
--
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 873999] New: perl-IO-Prompt-0.997002 is available
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=873999 Bug ID: 873999 Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org Severity: unspecified Version: rawhide Priority: unspecified CC: mmasl...@redhat.com, perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org, ppi...@redhat.com, psab...@redhat.com Assignee: ppi...@redhat.com Summary: perl-IO-Prompt-0.997002 is available Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Unspecified Reporter: upstream-release-monitor...@fedoraproject.org Type: --- Documentation: --- Hardware: Unspecified Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: perl-IO-Prompt Product: Fedora Latest upstream release: 0.997002 Current version in Fedora Rawhide: 0.997.001 URL: http://search.cpan.org/dist/IO-Prompt/ Please consult the package updates policy before you issue an update to a stable branch: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Updates_Policy More information about the service that created this bug can be found at: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Upstream_release_monitoring -- 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 874000] New: perl-Net-GitHub-0.47 is available
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=874000 Bug ID: 874000 Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org Severity: unspecified Version: rawhide Priority: unspecified CC: mmasl...@redhat.com, perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org, psab...@redhat.com Assignee: psab...@redhat.com Summary: perl-Net-GitHub-0.47 is available Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Unspecified Reporter: upstream-release-monitor...@fedoraproject.org Type: --- Documentation: --- Hardware: Unspecified Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: perl-Net-GitHub Product: Fedora Latest upstream release: 0.47 Current version in Fedora Rawhide: 0.46 URL: http://search.cpan.org/dist/Net-GitHub/ Please consult the package updates policy before you issue an update to a stable branch: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Updates_Policy More information about the service that created this bug can be found at: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Upstream_release_monitoring -- 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-Unix-Syslog] Conditionalize test dependencies
commit 4b323504c21849269ac06103dee5dce3a0c8452e
Author: Petr Písař ppi...@redhat.com
Date: Wed Nov 7 09:47:27 2012 +0100
Conditionalize test dependencies
perl-Unix-Syslog.spec | 18 +++---
1 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
---
diff --git a/perl-Unix-Syslog.spec b/perl-Unix-Syslog.spec
index 455ee17..1e51d0e 100644
--- a/perl-Unix-Syslog.spec
+++ b/perl-Unix-Syslog.spec
@@ -1,16 +1,24 @@
+# Tests require accessible syslog
+%bcond_with test
+
Name: perl-Unix-Syslog
Version:1.1
-Release:12%{?dist}
+Release:13%{?dist}
Summary:Perl interface to the UNIX syslog(3) calls
License:Artistic 2.0
Group: Development/Libraries
URL:http://search.cpan.org/dist/Unix-Syslog/
Source0:
http://www.cpan.org/authors/id/M/MH/MHARNISCH/Unix-Syslog-%{version}.tar.gz
BuildRequires: perl(ExtUtils::MakeMaker)
+%if %{with test}
# Run-requires:
BuildRequires: perl(DynaLoader)
BuildRequires: perl(Exporter)
+# Tests:
+BuildRequires: syslog
+%endif
Requires: perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_%(eval `%{__perl} -V:version`; echo
$version))
+Requires: syslog
%{?perl_default_filter}
@@ -34,8 +42,9 @@ find $RPM_BUILD_ROOT -type f -name '*.bs' -size 0 -exec rm -f
{} \;
%{_fixperms} $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/*
%check
-# Tests require accessible syslog
-%{?_with_check:make test}
+%if %{with test}
+make test
+%endif
%files
%doc Artistic Changes README
@@ -44,6 +53,9 @@ find $RPM_BUILD_ROOT -type f -name '*.bs' -size 0 -exec rm -f
{} \;
%{_mandir}/man3/*
%changelog
+* Wed Nov 07 2012 Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com - 1.1-13
+- Conditionalize test dependencies
+
* Wed Nov 07 2012 Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com - 1.1-12
- Specify all dependencies
- Do not export private library
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
perl-devel mailing list
perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/perl-devel
File IO-Prompt-0.997002.tar.gz uploaded to lookaside cache by ppisar
A file has been added to the lookaside cache for perl-IO-Prompt: 292048668ee6c489c61da6665bdc1c1f IO-Prompt-0.997002.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-IO-Prompt] 0.997002 bump
commit 323014bad8aa560668612a1d6ff00e253c02c800
Author: Petr Písař ppi...@redhat.com
Date: Wed Nov 7 11:12:54 2012 +0100
0.997002 bump
.gitignore |1 +
perl-IO-Prompt-rt69084.patch | 33 -
perl-IO-Prompt.spec | 14 ++
sources |2 +-
4 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 42 deletions(-)
---
diff --git a/.gitignore b/.gitignore
index 17ebb00..ef866f1 100644
--- a/.gitignore
+++ b/.gitignore
@@ -1,2 +1,3 @@
IO-Prompt-0.997.tar.gz
/IO-Prompt-0.997001.tar.gz
+/IO-Prompt-0.997002.tar.gz
diff --git a/perl-IO-Prompt.spec b/perl-IO-Prompt.spec
index 454e9a8..8a62a23 100644
--- a/perl-IO-Prompt.spec
+++ b/perl-IO-Prompt.spec
@@ -1,15 +1,11 @@
Name: perl-IO-Prompt
Summary:Interactively prompt for user input
-%global cpanver 0.997001
-Version:0.997.001
-Release:4%{?dist}
+%global cpanver 0.997002
+Version:0.997.002
+Release:1%{?dist}
License:GPL+ or Artistic
Group: Development/Libraries
Source0:
http://search.cpan.org/CPAN/authors/id/D/DC/DCONWAY/IO-Prompt-%{cpanver}.tar.gz
-# doesn't work on 5.14 if you call prompt() in non-main package
-# see https://rt.cpan.org/Public/Bug/Display.html?id=69084
-# and
https://github.com/gfx/p5-IO-Prompt-patched/commit/8300962b023580328f78b86aa1776d369769.patch
-Patch0: perl-IO-Prompt-rt69084.patch
URL:http://search.cpan.org/dist/IO-Prompt
BuildRoot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
Requires: perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_%(eval `%{__perl} -V:version`; echo
$version))
@@ -39,7 +35,6 @@ prompted.
%prep
%setup -q -n IO-Prompt-%{cpanver}
-%patch0 -p1
sed -i 's/\r//' t/*.t
@@ -79,6 +74,9 @@ rm -rf %{buildroot}
%changelog
+* Wed Nov 07 2012 Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com - 0.997.002-1
+- 0.997002 bump
+
* Fri Jul 20 2012 Fedora Release Engineering rel-...@lists.fedoraproject.org
- 0.997.001-4
- Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_18_Mass_Rebuild
diff --git a/sources b/sources
index c23d694..55854a9 100644
--- a/sources
+++ b/sources
@@ -1 +1 @@
-c1311dd2122cca28426394acf2aed2ba IO-Prompt-0.997001.tar.gz
+292048668ee6c489c61da6665bdc1c1f IO-Prompt-0.997002.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-IO-Prompt] Drop tests sub-package
commit da137b216fd792e542f08095c144998e83047451
Author: Petr Písař ppi...@redhat.com
Date: Wed Nov 7 11:14:57 2012 +0100
Drop tests sub-package
perl-IO-Prompt.spec |2 +-
1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
---
diff --git a/perl-IO-Prompt.spec b/perl-IO-Prompt.spec
index 8a62a23..bb98340 100644
--- a/perl-IO-Prompt.spec
+++ b/perl-IO-Prompt.spec
@@ -26,7 +26,6 @@ BuildRequires: perl(Want)
%{?perl_default_filter}
-%{?perl_default_subpackage_tests}
%description
An object-oriented way to prompt for user input -- and control how the user is
@@ -76,6 +75,7 @@ rm -rf %{buildroot}
%changelog
* Wed Nov 07 2012 Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com - 0.997.002-1
- 0.997002 bump
+- Drop tests sub-package
* Fri Jul 20 2012 Fedora Release Engineering rel-...@lists.fedoraproject.org
- 0.997.001-4
- Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_18_Mass_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-IO-Prompt] Modernize spec file
commit 6e4a47faf6a38ecc6cf862e05283195729e05071
Author: Petr Písař ppi...@redhat.com
Date: Wed Nov 7 11:17:47 2012 +0100
Modernize spec file
perl-IO-Prompt.spec | 29 ++---
1 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-)
---
diff --git a/perl-IO-Prompt.spec b/perl-IO-Prompt.spec
index bb98340..cd7a937 100644
--- a/perl-IO-Prompt.spec
+++ b/perl-IO-Prompt.spec
@@ -1,3 +1,7 @@
+# tests require working /dev/tty - disabled by default for koji
+# see https://rt.cpan.org/Public/Bug/Display.html?id=54807
+%bcond_with check
+
Name: perl-IO-Prompt
Summary:Interactively prompt for user input
%global cpanver 0.997002
@@ -7,14 +11,7 @@ License:GPL+ or Artistic
Group: Development/Libraries
Source0:
http://search.cpan.org/CPAN/authors/id/D/DC/DCONWAY/IO-Prompt-%{cpanver}.tar.gz
URL:http://search.cpan.org/dist/IO-Prompt
-BuildRoot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
-Requires: perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_%(eval `%{__perl} -V:version`; echo
$version))
BuildArch: noarch
-
-# tests require working /dev/tty - disabled by default for koji
-# see https://rt.cpan.org/Public/Bug/Display.html?id=54807
-%bcond_with check
-
BuildRequires: perl(IO::Handle)
BuildRequires: perl(POSIX)
BuildRequires: perl(Term::ReadKey)
@@ -23,7 +20,7 @@ BuildRequires: perl(Test::Pod)
BuildRequires: perl(Test::Pod::Coverage)
BuildRequires: perl(version)
BuildRequires: perl(Want)
-
+Requires: perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_%(eval `%{__perl} -V:version`; echo
$version))
%{?perl_default_filter}
@@ -31,28 +28,20 @@ BuildRequires: perl(Want)
An object-oriented way to prompt for user input -- and control how the user is
prompted.
-
%prep
%setup -q -n IO-Prompt-%{cpanver}
-
-sed -i 's/\r//' t/*.t
-
-find . -type f -exec chmod -c -x {} ';'
+find examples -type f -exec chmod -x {} +
%build
%{__perl} Makefile.PL INSTALLDIRS=vendor
make %{?_smp_mflags}
-
%install
-rm -rf %{buildroot}
make pure_install DESTDIR=%{buildroot}
find %{buildroot} -type f -name .packlist -exec rm -f {} ';'
find %{buildroot} -type f -name '*.bs' -a -size 0 -exec rm -f {} ';'
-find %{buildroot} -type d -depth -exec rmdir {} 2/dev/null ';'
%{_fixperms} %{buildroot}/*
-
%check
%if %{with check}
make test
@@ -60,13 +49,7 @@ find %{buildroot} -type d -depth -exec rmdir {} 2/dev/null
';'
echo Not running tests unless --with check is specified
%endif
-
-%clean
-rm -rf %{buildroot}
-
-
%files
-%defattr(-,root,root,-)
%doc Changes README examples/
%{perl_vendorlib}/*
%{_mandir}/man3/*.3*
--
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-IO-Prompt] Specify all dependencies
commit 87780d5eeb9ec87a7eb0d0981ac3f924202cf22f
Author: Petr Písař ppi...@redhat.com
Date: Wed Nov 7 11:25:11 2012 +0100
Specify all dependencies
perl-IO-Prompt.spec | 14 ++
1 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
---
diff --git a/perl-IO-Prompt.spec b/perl-IO-Prompt.spec
index cd7a937..628c804 100644
--- a/perl-IO-Prompt.spec
+++ b/perl-IO-Prompt.spec
@@ -12,14 +12,19 @@ Group: Development/Libraries
Source0:
http://search.cpan.org/CPAN/authors/id/D/DC/DCONWAY/IO-Prompt-%{cpanver}.tar.gz
URL:http://search.cpan.org/dist/IO-Prompt
BuildArch: noarch
+BuildRequires: perl(ExtUtils::MakeMaker)
+# Run-time:
+BuildRequires: perl(Carp)
BuildRequires: perl(IO::Handle)
BuildRequires: perl(POSIX)
+BuildRequires: perl(Scalar::Util)
BuildRequires: perl(Term::ReadKey)
-BuildRequires: perl(Test::More)
-BuildRequires: perl(Test::Pod)
-BuildRequires: perl(Test::Pod::Coverage)
-BuildRequires: perl(version)
BuildRequires: perl(Want)
+# Tests:
+BuildRequires: perl(Test::More)
+# Optional tests:
+BuildRequires: perl(Test::Pod) = 1.14
+BuildRequires: perl(Test::Pod::Coverage) = 1.04
Requires: perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_%(eval `%{__perl} -V:version`; echo
$version))
%{?perl_default_filter}
@@ -59,6 +64,7 @@ find %{buildroot} -type f -name '*.bs' -a -size 0 -exec rm -f
{} ';'
* Wed Nov 07 2012 Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com - 0.997.002-1
- 0.997002 bump
- Drop tests sub-package
+- Specify all dependencies
* Fri Jul 20 2012 Fedora Release Engineering rel-...@lists.fedoraproject.org
- 0.997.001-4
- Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_18_Mass_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-IO-Prompt] This module is deprecated
commit 8f5b6c3288352ad4bd19bc86b8e8ba0a39e1eac4
Author: Petr Písař ppi...@redhat.com
Date: Wed Nov 7 11:25:51 2012 +0100
This module is deprecated
perl-IO-Prompt.spec |2 ++
1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
---
diff --git a/perl-IO-Prompt.spec b/perl-IO-Prompt.spec
index 628c804..0c76ea2 100644
--- a/perl-IO-Prompt.spec
+++ b/perl-IO-Prompt.spec
@@ -33,6 +33,8 @@ Requires: perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_%(eval `%{__perl}
-V:version`; echo $versi
An object-oriented way to prompt for user input -- and control how the user is
prompted.
+This module is no longer being maintained. Use the IO::Prompter module instead.
+
%prep
%setup -q -n IO-Prompt-%{cpanver}
find examples -type f -exec chmod -x {} +
--
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-IO-Prompt] Conditionalize test dependencies
commit 2ec35902db965c1222cfdae8da87a78ff5dcf4f0
Author: Petr Písař ppi...@redhat.com
Date: Wed Nov 7 11:29:04 2012 +0100
Conditionalize test dependencies
perl-IO-Prompt.spec |2 ++
1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
---
diff --git a/perl-IO-Prompt.spec b/perl-IO-Prompt.spec
index 0c76ea2..1d81b49 100644
--- a/perl-IO-Prompt.spec
+++ b/perl-IO-Prompt.spec
@@ -13,6 +13,7 @@ Source0:
http://search.cpan.org/CPAN/authors/id/D/DC/DCONWAY/IO-Prompt-%{
URL:http://search.cpan.org/dist/IO-Prompt
BuildArch: noarch
BuildRequires: perl(ExtUtils::MakeMaker)
+%if %{with check}
# Run-time:
BuildRequires: perl(Carp)
BuildRequires: perl(IO::Handle)
@@ -25,6 +26,7 @@ BuildRequires: perl(Test::More)
# Optional tests:
BuildRequires: perl(Test::Pod) = 1.14
BuildRequires: perl(Test::Pod::Coverage) = 1.04
+%endif
Requires: perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_%(eval `%{__perl} -V:version`; echo
$version))
%{?perl_default_filter}
--
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 873999] perl-IO-Prompt-0.997002 is available
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=873999 Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Fixed In Version||perl-IO-Prompt-0.997.002-1. ||fc19 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2012-11-07 05:38:03 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. -- Fedora Extras Perl SIG http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl perl-devel mailing list perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/perl-devel
File Net-GitHub-0.47.tar.gz uploaded to lookaside cache by psabata
A file has been added to the lookaside cache for perl-Net-GitHub: 4d9a083080b6492bb509d507e3875bfb Net-GitHub-0.47.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
Broken dependencies: perl-OpenOffice-UNO
perl-OpenOffice-UNO has broken dependencies in the F-18 tree: On x86_64: perl-OpenOffice-UNO-0.07-3.fc17.x86_64 requires perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.14.2) On i386: perl-OpenOffice-UNO-0.07-3.fc17.i686 requires perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.14.2) perl-OpenOffice-UNO-0.07-3.fc17.i686 requires libsal_textenc.so Please resolve this as soon as possible. -- Fedora Extras Perl SIG http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl perl-devel mailing list perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/perl-devel
[perl-Module-Manifest] Modernize spec file (EU::MM understands DESTDIR)
commit 9271931f99c4295a2e8566761656b1be5fce4fd5
Author: Petr Písař ppi...@redhat.com
Date: Wed Nov 7 14:08:14 2012 +0100
Modernize spec file (EU::MM understands DESTDIR)
perl-Module-Manifest.spec |7 +--
1 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
---
diff --git a/perl-Module-Manifest.spec b/perl-Module-Manifest.spec
index 4e2425c..e2798e6 100644
--- a/perl-Module-Manifest.spec
+++ b/perl-Module-Manifest.spec
@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
Name: perl-Module-Manifest
Version:1.08
-Release:8%{?dist}
+Release:9%{?dist}
Summary:Parse and examine a Perl distribution MANIFEST file
License:GPL+ or Artistic
Group: Development/Libraries
@@ -41,7 +41,7 @@ rm -rf inc/*
make %{?_smp_mflags}
%install
-make pure_install PERL_INSTALL_ROOT=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT
+make pure_install DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT
find $RPM_BUILD_ROOT -type f -name .packlist -exec rm -f {} \;
%{_fixperms} $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/*
@@ -54,6 +54,9 @@ make test
%{_mandir}/man3/*
%changelog
+* Wed Nov 07 2012 Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com - 1.08-9
+- Modernize spec file (EU::MM understands DESTDIR)
+
* Thu Aug 09 2012 Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com - 1.08-8
- Modernize spec file
- Specify all dependencies
--
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 873715] FTBS perl-Class-Inspector is missing dependency
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=873715 --- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- Package perl-Class-Inspector-1.28-1.fc18: * should fix your issue, * was pushed to the Fedora 18 testing repository, * should be available at your local mirror within two days. Update it with: # su -c 'yum update --enablerepo=updates-testing perl-Class-Inspector-1.28-1.fc18' as soon as you are able to. Please go to the following url: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-17740/perl-Class-Inspector-1.28-1.fc18 then log in and leave karma (feedback). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. -- Fedora Extras Perl SIG http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl perl-devel mailing list perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/perl-devel
File Test-TCP-1.18.tar.gz uploaded to lookaside cache by corsepiu
A file has been added to the lookaside cache for perl-Test-TCP: 0c9876b4455902aa3cf1dea7b3ebb7e3 Test-TCP-1.18.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-Test-TCP] Upstream update.
commit 60625cb9ccfe710963de9e41cdf859ee622ee16f
Author: Ralf Corsépius corse...@fedoraproject.org
Date: Thu Nov 8 03:41:32 2012 +0100
Upstream update.
.gitignore |2 +-
perl-Test-TCP.spec |5 -
sources|2 +-
3 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
---
diff --git a/.gitignore b/.gitignore
index 856cfee..5639731 100644
--- a/.gitignore
+++ b/.gitignore
@@ -1 +1 @@
-/Test-TCP-1.17.tar.gz
+/Test-TCP-1.18.tar.gz
diff --git a/perl-Test-TCP.spec b/perl-Test-TCP.spec
index 34e041f..1e7b628 100644
--- a/perl-Test-TCP.spec
+++ b/perl-Test-TCP.spec
@@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
Name: perl-Test-TCP
-Version:1.17
+Version:1.18
Release:1%{?dist}
Summary:Testing TCP program
License:GPL+ or Artistic
@@ -45,6 +45,9 @@ make test
%{_mandir}/man3/*
%changelog
+* Thu Nov 08 2012 Ralf Corsépius corse...@fedoraproject.org 1.18-1
+- Upstream update.
+
* Tue Jul 31 2012 Ralf Corsépius corse...@fedoraproject.org 1.17-1
- Upstream update.
diff --git a/sources b/sources
index 252df80..3f92b6f 100644
--- a/sources
+++ b/sources
@@ -1 +1 @@
-7f0f8a73c1fd8a2c881e210819bea6f0 Test-TCP-1.17.tar.gz
+0c9876b4455902aa3cf1dea7b3ebb7e3 Test-TCP-1.18.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-Test-TCP/f17] (2 commits) ...Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin/f18' into f17
Summary of changes: 60625cb... Upstream update. (*) 3892859... Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin/f18' into f17 (*) This commit already existed in another branch; no separate mail sent -- Fedora Extras Perl SIG http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl perl-devel mailing list perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/perl-devel
[perl-Test-TCP/f17: 2/2] Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin/f18' into f17
commit 3892859b3112e9bdea5e29bbe8c99f90fd48a463 Merge: 9bb7dd2 60625cb Author: Ralf Corsépius corse...@fedoraproject.org Date: Thu Nov 8 03:44:50 2012 +0100 Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin/f18' into f17 .gitignore |2 +- perl-Test-TCP.spec |5 - sources|2 +- 3 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) --- -- 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-TCP/f16] (3 commits) ...Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin/f17' into f16
Summary of changes: 60625cb... Upstream update. (*) 3892859... Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin/f18' into f17 (*) 2ddd0b5... Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin/f17' into f16 (*) This commit already existed in another branch; no separate mail sent -- Fedora Extras Perl SIG http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl perl-devel mailing list perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/perl-devel
[perl-Test-TCP/f16: 3/3] Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin/f17' into f16
commit 2ddd0b5e57c74396a93bbd67fef2eeae39d42b24 Merge: be16d5e 3892859 Author: Ralf Corsépius corse...@fedoraproject.org Date: Thu Nov 8 03:48:05 2012 +0100 Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin/f17' into f16 .gitignore |2 +- perl-Test-TCP.spec |5 - sources|2 +- 3 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) --- -- 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-Taint] Upstream update.
commit d318241644f03f89c778abd98061f8c33ca4
Author: Ralf Corsépius corse...@fedoraproject.org
Date: Thu Nov 8 04:58:05 2012 +0100
Upstream update.
- Add missing deps.
.gitignore |2 +-
perl-Test-Taint.spec | 13 +++--
sources |2 +-
3 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
---
diff --git a/.gitignore b/.gitignore
index 58b4b72..e5e1524 100644
--- a/.gitignore
+++ b/.gitignore
@@ -1 +1 @@
-Test-Taint-1.04.tar.gz
+/Test-Taint-1.06.tar.gz
diff --git a/perl-Test-Taint.spec b/perl-Test-Taint.spec
index 4d6c727..59ee7e4 100644
--- a/perl-Test-Taint.spec
+++ b/perl-Test-Taint.spec
@@ -1,19 +1,24 @@
Summary:Tools to test taintedness
Name: perl-Test-Taint
-Version:1.04
-Release:19%{?dist}
+Version:1.06
+Release:1%{?dist}
License:GPL+ or Artistic
Group: Development/Libraries
URL:http://search.cpan.org/dist/Test-Taint/
Source0:
http://search.cpan.org/CPAN/authors/id/P/PE/PETDANCE/Test-Taint-%{version}.tar.gz
BuildRequires: perl(base)
+BuildRequires: perl(overload)
BuildRequires: perl(ExtUtils::MakeMaker)
BuildRequires: perl(Scalar::Util)
BuildRequires: perl(Test::Builder)
BuildRequires: perl(Test::More)
BuildRequires: perl(Test::Pod) = 1.00
BuildRequires: perl(Test::Pod::Coverage) = 0.08
+BuildRequires: perl(Tie::Array)
+BuildRequires: perl(Tie::Hash)
+BuildRequires: perl(Tie::Scalar)
+
Requires: perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_%(eval `%{__perl} -V:version`; echo
$version))
%{?perl_default_filter}
@@ -53,6 +58,10 @@ make test
%{_mandir}/man3/*
%changelog
+* Thu Nov 08 2012 Ralf Corsépius corse...@fedoraproject.org - 1.06-1
+- Upstream update.
+- Add missing deps.
+
* Thu Oct 25 2012 Jitka Plesnikova jples...@redhat.com - 1.04-19
- Specify all dependencies
- Drop %%defattr, redundant since rpm 4.4
diff --git a/sources b/sources
index 718d36b..f38a33e 100644
--- a/sources
+++ b/sources
@@ -1 +1 @@
-a005ab5a2e22ab462b4f3661d1d1d5e0 Test-Taint-1.04.tar.gz
+cb639c250f2030262a562ce3376219b0 Test-Taint-1.06.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-Test-Taint/f18] (2 commits) ...Upstream update.
Summary of changes: 898b256... Specify all dependencies. Drop %%defattr, redundant since r (*) d318241... Upstream update. (*) (*) This commit already existed in another branch; no separate mail sent -- Fedora Extras Perl SIG http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl perl-devel mailing list perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/perl-devel
[perl-Test-Taint/f17] (5 commits) ...Merge cleanup.
Summary of changes: 86af1b5... Perl 5.16 rebuild (*) f9a8c16... - Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_18_Mass (*) 898b256... Specify all dependencies. Drop %%defattr, redundant since r (*) d318241... Upstream update. (*) 7bb2b6b... Merge cleanup. (*) This commit already existed in another branch; no separate mail sent -- Fedora Extras Perl SIG http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl perl-devel mailing list perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/perl-devel
[perl-Test-Taint/f17: 5/5] Merge cleanup.
commit 7bb2b6b7a18666540fd6edff2973ea4c05ba3ecb
Author: Ralf Corsépius corse...@fedoraproject.org
Date: Thu Nov 8 05:22:12 2012 +0100
Merge cleanup.
perl-Test-Taint.spec |6 --
1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
---
diff --git a/perl-Test-Taint.spec b/perl-Test-Taint.spec
index 59ee7e4..a491ee1 100644
--- a/perl-Test-Taint.spec
+++ b/perl-Test-Taint.spec
@@ -67,12 +67,6 @@ make test
- Drop %%defattr, redundant since rpm 4.4
- Fix mixed use of spaces and tabs
-* Fri Jul 20 2012 Fedora Release Engineering rel-...@lists.fedoraproject.org
- 1.04-18
-- Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_18_Mass_Rebuild
-
-* Wed Jun 13 2012 Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com - 1.04-17
-- Perl 5.16 rebuild
-
* Sun Jan 22 2012 Ralf Corsépius corse...@fedoraproject.org - 1.04-16
- Modernize spec.
- Add %%{perl_default_filter}.
--
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-Taint/f16] (8 commits) ...Merge cleanup.
Summary of changes:
2316a24... - Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_17_Mass (*)
c7695e6... Modernize spec. Add %{perl_default_filter}. (*)
86af1b5... Perl 5.16 rebuild (*)
f9a8c16... - Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_18_Mass (*)
898b256... Specify all dependencies. Drop %%defattr, redundant since r (*)
d318241... Upstream update. (*)
7bb2b6b... Merge cleanup. (*)
2313bd2... Merge cleanup.
(*) This commit already existed in another branch; no separate mail sent
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
perl-devel mailing list
perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/perl-devel
[perl-Test-Taint/f16: 8/8] Merge cleanup.
commit 2313bd284c94dd1750cb070e522753bbce025928
Author: Ralf Corsépius corse...@fedoraproject.org
Date: Thu Nov 8 05:24:26 2012 +0100
Merge cleanup.
perl-Test-Taint.spec |3 ---
1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
---
diff --git a/perl-Test-Taint.spec b/perl-Test-Taint.spec
index a491ee1..2d1f4d1 100644
--- a/perl-Test-Taint.spec
+++ b/perl-Test-Taint.spec
@@ -71,9 +71,6 @@ make test
- Modernize spec.
- Add %%{perl_default_filter}.
-* Fri Jan 13 2012 Fedora Release Engineering rel-...@lists.fedoraproject.org
- 1.04-15
-- Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_17_Mass_Rebuild
-
* Mon Jun 20 2011 Marcela Mašláňová mmasl...@redhat.com - 1.04-14
- Perl mass 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
[389-devel] Please review: [389 Project] #447: Possible to add invalid attribute to nsslapd-allowed-to-delete-attrs
https://fedorahosted.org/389/ticket/447 https://fedorahosted.org/389/attachment/ticket/447/0001-Trac-Ticket-447-Possible-to-add-invalid-attribute.patch Fix description: This patch is adding a code to check if the value of config parameter nsslapd-allowed-to-delete-attrs includes any invalid attributes or not. If it does, the server ignores the invalid ones, and the following search returns only the valid attributes. Also, it is logged in the error log: nsslapd-allowed-to-delete-attrs: Unknown attribute bogus will be ignored -- 389-devel mailing list 389-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/389-devel
Fedora 18 Beta to slip by two weeks, Beta release date is now Nov 27
Today at FESCo meeting [1] it was decided to slip Fedora 18 Beta release by *two* weeks to give the Installer team, the new upgrade tool and Secure Boot time to finish and polish these features to meet our release quality standards. As a result, Fedora 18 Beta will be pushed out by two weeks, the development is re-opened, with tentative Change Deadline on Nov 13. Fedora 18 Beta release is now Nov 27. Anyone with objections to enter Beta freeze on Nov 13 can file a ticket with FESCo on the Nov 12/13 and it will be discussed in the ticket or on special meeting. Final Change deadline is rescheduled to Dec 18 with final Fedora 18 release on 2013 Jan 08 [2]. The Go/No-Go meeting on Thursday, Nov 08 is cancelled. Please, work on your blocker bugs and help testing the Fedora 18, so we will be able to release in the beginning of January. [1] http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2012-11-07/fesco.2012-11-07-18.00.log.html [2] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/18/Schedule Thanks Jaroslav ___ devel-announce mailing list devel-announce@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel-announce
