Re: Lack of response about sponsorship
On 17/10/13 15:56, مصعب الزعبي wrote: LOL ^_^ I have 7 review requests , 5 of them ready , but no sponsors !!! On the other side, just complaining won't help anyone. Given, everybody is more or less overloaded, it would help you in reviewing others packages as well, even IF you're NOT in packager group yet. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group lists, how to get sponsored. Just waiting might be a solution, but probably not the fastest one. Matthias -- Matthias Runge mru...@matthias-runge.de -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Fedora 20 Beta blocker bug status: fix and karma requests
On 10/19/2013 06:36 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: On Sat, 2013-10-19 at 09:45 -0400, Gene Czarcinski wrote: * https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1017435 - Anaconda uses LVM when Standard Partition is selected in text mode (anaconda) - this bug has been verified fixed by the update https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-blivet-0.23.1-1.fc20,anaconda-20.25.1-1.fc20 , but that update needs more karma to go stable. That is the build that is in TC5, so anyone who's tested TC5 and found it generally OK (no worse than previous builds) can +1 the update: please do! There are two problems with this update and I have submitted patches for both: 1. The fix for handling existing btrfs subvolumes does not work (yet), small fix needed. 2. The change in the way swap definitions are handled for additions to fstab omits handling the case for existing noformat swap definitions on both regular partitions and logical volumes. Without these patches or equivalent, this is definitely a blocker. It's not a blocker unless someone files a bug and proposes it as a blocker: that's how the process works. Is there a bug report? And are these *new* problems compared to 20.24/20.25? That depends on how you define new With 20.25.1, there is a claim that it fixes the problem identified in: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=892747 where an existing btrfs subvolume with --noformat specified is ignored rather than being added to fstab. The problem is that it is not fixed. I have attached a tested patch to correct this to the bugzilla report. Before 20.25.1, if you had an existing swap on a regular partition or a logical volume and you specified --noformat, that swap specification was added to fstab. With 20.25.1, this is no longer the case and you wind up with no swap at all. You might want to not reformat that swap because you are using UUID and you have another system (multiboot) also using that swap and refering to it also by UUID. This problem is reported by: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020867 Again, I have attached a tested patch to correct the problem to the bugzilla report. This swap problem was introduced by changes made in 20.25.1. Gene -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: how to withdraw glusterfs from epel?
How about, if it's not an EPEL repo, you make a separate release package for it? Just like the epel-release package, but pinted to your repository, so it's a separate installation and not part of EPEL? Then it would be moe like repoforge, jpackage, Percona, and Jenkins repos. On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 10:03 AM, Kaleb S. KEITHLEY kkeit...@redhat.comwrote: On 10/18/2013 09:55 AM, Paul Howarth wrote: On 18/10/13 13:38, Kaleb S. KEITHLEY wrote: Before too much longer I will need to withdraw the glusterfs. (glusterfs-3.2.7 fwiw, very out of date, this version is a Requires for another package, HekaFS.) Withdrawal becomes necessary when RHEL starts to ship a subset of the glusterfs packages. But instead of withdrawing it, what if I were to alter it to simply install /etc/yum.repos.d/community-**glusterfs.repo file? This repo file would point to YUM repo(s) on download.gluster.org. Would that conform to the Fedora policy wrt not shipping packages that conflict with packages in RHEL. It would be against the policy of not shipping repo files for non-Fedora repos: https://fedoraproject.org/**wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#** Configuration_of_Package_**Managershttps://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Configuration_of_Package_Managers Okay, I'm okay with that. How about instead of a /etc/yum.repos.d/ file if it's a /usr/share/doc/glusterfs.**README containing instructions for how to use the community GlusterFS yum repo? -- Kaleb -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.**org/mailman/listinfo/develhttps://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-**of-conducthttp://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
dnf-0.4.5
Hello, there's a new DNF release available in F20 [1] and rawhide today. Bug 1021087 that causes users to see tracebacks on upgrade transactions with obsoleting packages (typically experienced when one tries to upgrade to f20 using the --releasever parameter) is fixed in 0.4.5. Please see the release notes [2] and the blog post [3]. Ales [1] https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/dnf-0.4.5-1.fc20 [2] http://akozumpl.github.io/dnf/release_notes.html#id16 [3] http://dnf.baseurl.org/2013/10/20/dnf-0-4-5-released/ -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
F-20 Branched report: 20131020 changes
Compose started at Sun Oct 20 09:15:02 UTC 2013 Broken deps for armhfp -- [blueman] blueman-1.23-7.fc20.armv7hl requires obex-data-server = 0:0.4.3 blueman-1.23-7.fc20.armv7hl requires gvfs-obexftp [bwm-ng] bwm-ng-0.6-11.1.fc20.armv7hl requires libstatgrab.so.9 [cloud-init] cloud-init-0.7.2-7.fc20.noarch requires dmidecode [cobbler] cobbler-2.4.0-2.fc20.noarch requires syslinux [condor-wallaby] condor-wallaby-client-5.0.3-4.fc20.noarch requires python-qmf = 0:0.9.1073306 [fts] fts-server-3.1.1-1.fc20.armv7hl requires libactivemq-cpp.so.14 [glpi] glpi-0.84.2-1.fc20.noarch requires php-ZendFramework2-Version glpi-0.84.2-1.fc20.noarch requires php-ZendFramework2-Stdlib glpi-0.84.2-1.fc20.noarch requires php-ZendFramework2-ServiceManager glpi-0.84.2-1.fc20.noarch requires php-ZendFramework2-Loader glpi-0.84.2-1.fc20.noarch requires php-ZendFramework2-I18n glpi-0.84.2-1.fc20.noarch requires php-ZendFramework2-Cache-apc glpi-0.84.2-1.fc20.noarch requires php-ZendFramework2-Cache [gnome-do-plugins] gnome-do-plugins-thunderbird-0.8.4-14.fc20.armv7hl requires thunderbird [gofer] ruby-gofer-0.75-4.fc20.noarch requires rubygem(qpid) = 0:0.16.0 [gradle] gradle-1.0-18.fc20.noarch requires plexus-container-default [grass] grass-6.4.3-2.fc20.armv7hl requires libgeos-3.3.8.so grass-libs-6.4.3-2.fc20.armv7hl requires libgeos-3.3.8.so [gtkd] gtkd-geany-tags-2.0.0-29.20120815git9ae9181.fc18.noarch requires gtkd = 0:2.0.0-29.20120815git9ae9181.fc18 [kawa] 1:kawa-1.11-5.fc19.armv7hl requires servlet25 [koji] koji-vm-1.8.0-2.fc20.noarch requires python-virtinst [kyua-cli] kyua-cli-0.5-3.fc19.armv7hl requires liblutok.so.0 kyua-cli-tests-0.5-3.fc19.armv7hl requires liblutok.so.0 [monotone] monotone-1.0-11.fc19.armv7hl requires libbotan-1.8.2.so perl-Monotone-1.0-11.fc19.armv7hl requires perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.16.2) [mozilla-firetray] mozilla-firetray-thunderbird-0.3.6-0.5.143svn.fc18.1.armv7hl requires thunderbird = 0:11 [msp430-libc] msp430-libc-20120224-2.fc19.noarch requires msp430-gcc = 0:4.6.3 [nifti2dicom] nifti2dicom-0.4.6-3.fc20.armv7hl requires libvtksys.so.5.10 nifti2dicom-0.4.6-3.fc20.armv7hl requires libvtkWidgets.so.5.10 nifti2dicom-0.4.6-3.fc20.armv7hl requires libvtkVolumeRendering.so.5.10 nifti2dicom-0.4.6-3.fc20.armv7hl requires libvtkViews.so.5.10 nifti2dicom-0.4.6-3.fc20.armv7hl requires libvtkTextAnalysis.so.5.10 nifti2dicom-0.4.6-3.fc20.armv7hl requires libvtkRendering.so.5.10 nifti2dicom-0.4.6-3.fc20.armv7hl requires libvtkParallel.so.5.10 nifti2dicom-0.4.6-3.fc20.armv7hl requires libvtkInfovis.so.5.10 nifti2dicom-0.4.6-3.fc20.armv7hl requires libvtkImaging.so.5.10 nifti2dicom-0.4.6-3.fc20.armv7hl requires libvtkIO.so.5.10 nifti2dicom-0.4.6-3.fc20.armv7hl requires libvtkHybrid.so.5.10 nifti2dicom-0.4.6-3.fc20.armv7hl requires libvtkGraphics.so.5.10 nifti2dicom-0.4.6-3.fc20.armv7hl requires libvtkGeovis.so.5.10 nifti2dicom-0.4.6-3.fc20.armv7hl requires libvtkGenericFiltering.so.5.10 nifti2dicom-0.4.6-3.fc20.armv7hl requires libvtkFiltering.so.5.10 nifti2dicom-0.4.6-3.fc20.armv7hl requires libvtkCommon.so.5.10 nifti2dicom-0.4.6-3.fc20.armv7hl requires libvtkCharts.so.5.10 nifti2dicom-0.4.6-3.fc20.armv7hl requires libQVTK.so.5.10 [nocpulse-common] nocpulse-common-2.2.7-2.fc20.noarch requires perl(RHN::DBI) [openbox] gdm-control-3.5.2-2.fc20.armv7hl requires gnome-panel gnome-panel-control-3.5.2-2.fc20.armv7hl requires gnome-panel [openpts] openpts-0.2.6-7.fc20.armv7hl requires tboot [osm2pgsql] osm2pgsql-0.82.0-1.fc20.armv7hl requires libgeos-3.3.8.so [oyranos] oyranos-libs-0.4.0-7.fc19.armv7hl requires libraw.so.5 [perl-BerkeleyDB] perl-BerkeleyDB-0.53-1.fc20.armv7hl requires libdb = 0:5.3.21 [perl-Language-Expr] perl-Language-Expr-0.19-4.fc19.noarch requires perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.16.2) [perl-MIME-Lite-HTML] perl-MIME-Lite-HTML-1.24-4.fc18.noarch requires perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.16.0) [perl-Padre] perl-Padre-0.90-6.fc18.noarch requires perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.16.0) [pure] pure-doc-0.57-4.fc20.noarch requires pure = 0:0.57-4.fc20 [python-tag] python-tag-2013.1-1.fc20.armv7hl requires libboost_python.so.1.53.0 [rootplot] rootplot-2.2.1-7.fc19.noarch requires root-python [ruby-spqr] ruby-spqr-0.3.6-7.fc20.noarch requires ruby-qpid-qmf [rubygem-audited-activerecord] rubygem-audited-activerecord-3.0.0-3.fc19.noarch requires rubygem(activerecord) 0:4 [rubygem-fog] rubygem-fog-1.11.1-1.fc20.noarch requires rubygem(nokogiri) 0:1.6 [scala]
Re: Lack of response about sponsorship
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 I think better solution is everyone (sponsors, packagers, packager candidates) must go one step further. We all have important works to do outside of Fedora Project and one cannot pretend special attentions from others quickly. I myself thought that wait a sponsor just for my package review was right way to become a packager. Absolutely not; becoming a good packager also means to know rushing yourself into other reviews. One needs to put yourself in the game, before all. But also I think a faster notice among sponsors can be useful when a packager candidate already gets moving so that he/she can be helped in his/her new experiences. - -- - Antonio Trande mailto: sagit...@fedoraproject.org http://www.fedoraos.worpress.com https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Sagitter GPG Key: D400D6C4 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.15 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJSY9JPAAoJED2vIvfUANbEoSoP+wTOY0yg2t8t48Y4h8jvnW+b XpvNWBOaTHhsubUVgYp6bfbDSy6pCPwjGSRUWIVBADqFPm6rimUR4OMrFUAbn13p RGCvS2xe+DR1OXBv74mTVMfRnAjNszFUql66tWDZ8wIjoXpuX+J2SB2XRAmOf/QP 2VBUeTNGV+P1hNJtaUO+O+7jw1K/ReEXNyuIe3gIBb6lF+pNCN5r2G9qdMXtxMhB sm39WKUQFjfP09YsjdRr2N6Bz9tSKfNHskQCmvWKRhCZJYxmuF7ZFFSbVg4TzI3D MAx0fyDi+h68VHdlhIxg7f5MQdWLum/gjGn4quLBMXsEBObT7kptbd46+vC/PjiS C2U9wmohFtTwJfJRH6jcMy0wGqrfstNsKKk6buF+5tm1qXAMDck6MzzFHBJvFV9h 36ApVaHVpTFnU72+FOudESGWQ/TQgMT6pcxLJzJuvFkajMr5Cvot6xQRodk3AIJP tSHUPg0Cro6XopBQaETNOpMrKyVkzq5l/kLpVWuRKrO/hj9cHAEMk5E4Z/+ejHD1 mzyzsED328diYADcgk51A3k+4OX21MzaWavrnwfDvUxtVGFUwAgvV2h2IJ6monAo x33d/i4gTRySlJeJ0tDz1T/7JYXmdEHurFBm60Gobuv279NDWuAf/FesqZUhwPmG Uo7HFYu9IIVdMe0UXDO+ =LsiK -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
rawhide composes
Greetings. Some of you may have noted that there was no rawhide compose pushed out saturday or today. The compose is failing and I think it's related to the createrepo update that landed in rawhide on friday: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1021162 Has the details. More eyes on the errors or code welcome. kevin signature.asc Description: PGP signature -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Lack of response about sponsorship
Hi, as a first advice: Please do not top post: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines#If_You_Are_Replying_to_a_Message On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 03:56:00PM +0200, مصعب الزعبي wrote: LOL ^_^ I have 7 review requests , 5 of them ready , but no sponsors !!! If you provided links to your review together with a list of preliminary reviews, you can increase your chances to find a sponsor. Regards Till -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Fedora 20 Beta blocker bug status: fix and karma requests
On Oct 20, 2013, at 4:38 AM, Gene Czarcinski g...@czarc.net wrote: Before 20.25.1, if you had an existing swap on a regular partition or a logical volume and you specified --noformat, that swap specification was added to fstab. With 20.25.1, this is no longer the case and you wind up with no swap at all. You might want to not reformat that swap because you are using UUID and you have another system (multiboot) also using that swap and refering to it also by UUID. This problem is reported by: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020867 Again, I have attached a tested patch to correct the problem to the bugzilla report. This swap problem was introduced by changes made in 20.25.1. It might be related to this: http://www.freedesktop.org/software/systemd/man/systemd-gpt-auto-generator.html Since systemd is auto mounting certain partitiontypeguids, they don't need to be in fstab. There are few bugs filed as a result of the ensuing confusion. So it might be new behavior in anaconda 20.25.1 to ignore the request to reuse existing swap by adding it to fstab since it knows systemd is going to use it in any case. Chris Murphy -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
svn build issue
Hi, hi I'm working on the packet guayadeque, when creating the rpm package on Fedora 20 you get the following error message: bugzilla: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=853553 There is a problem during the fedora 19+ package building related to svn: -- Found Subversion: /usr/bin/svn (found version 1.8.3) CMake Error at /usr/share/cmake/Modules/FindSubversion.cmake:83 (message): Command /usr/bin/svn info /builddir/build/BUILD/guayadeque-svn1885 failed with output: svn: E155036: Please see the 'svn upgrade' command svn: E155036: The working copy at '/builddir/build/BUILD/guayadeque-svn1885' is too old (format 29) to work with client version '1.8.3 (r1516576)' (expects format 31). You need to upgrade the working copy first. You need to upgrade the working copy with a 'svn upgrade' command in the %prep section if you build the package in fedora = 20, otherwise building fails. I don't know if this issue can be fixed only inside the RPM building or can be done even outside. have somebody a idea to resolve this problem ? regards Martin -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: svn build issue
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 10/20/2013 08:31 PM, Martin Gansser wrote: Hi, hi I'm working on the packet guayadeque, when creating the rpm package on Fedora 20 you get the following error message: bugzilla: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=853553 There is a problem during the fedora 19+ package building related to svn: -- Found Subversion: /usr/bin/svn (found version 1.8.3) CMake Error at /usr/share/cmake/Modules/FindSubversion.cmake:83 (message): Command /usr/bin/svn info /builddir/build/BUILD/guayadeque-svn1885 failed with output: svn: E155036: Please see the 'svn upgrade' command svn: E155036: The working copy at '/builddir/build/BUILD/guayadeque-svn1885' is too old (format 29) to work with client version '1.8.3 (r1516576)' (expects format 31). You need to upgrade the working copy first. It seems sufficient to erase .svn files as Susi Lehtola said in a previous mail. In fact, your package is now built in rawhide. Maybe, someone knows a most elegant way to overcome this issue. :) - -- - Antonio Trande mailto: sagit...@fedoraproject.org http://www.fedoraos.worpress.com https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Sagitter GPG Key: D400D6C4 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.15 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJSZCPEAAoJED2vIvfUANbEIysP/3a5gd5l1R1HtDpPgTPjD5iT Rm1gTG7kOQi4wWyV5sFaon2Nx2TPpf6l80Ymi+Kun/DolR1bt2E/JgZ1KtlREykV /aZany/v7Jnp84ByjXxhIYxubE/z7fl08/WcPFmdwkgjdePUZp0VOEpGa1YcRCFI 9bqswfuwP5b8XHRs5/bCEI++36B1TncZFDIEKR4+Y9eZZ2h736+Rmt0sIoLLERy4 YDLBLTMNQFFnEcJQ5gVdkPTDmHePtIs+x3OQ87X7WLMyM3qcLyhd33iHIoCzxJZ+ pnLJApDzClLvDDIIbEbg8/HGVf/xWyBNUd1tJGvEEsVHQ6y2QO27JIJYHy5U2nlx Raca1X5XxykP1cF/hDVIfL4vPX9FIIDnbUBiBHLvezqdnmXVk82zZaDWCGyGKnG8 gIP2KUH3EedgsW6vUkFdW1bRjEZzNWkW6kYFZtsz/DliLZtYNzjvYqZPbIXcG/xy dJ5+Bet3HUMwe2I5dDWe0z7XVH1/6Otn0cz8Za3ZuvLzh649dPfrJN7Aba3k9SS5 TcObs5DvRklfIswyk3xXr45WYiFKp82b679Xg2BPcqv2xZGHgRgUwoKZPtnlFhYm 4ZC/I8bk+tdEo41NaS5cc35WHjUKIoElbWJ5weAl2cZ+UjXxrJ7xS5iMHGaysfM/ C74T3tv944PS8khusW98 =29so -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Lack of response about sponsorship
*snip* https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group lists, how to get sponsored. Just waiting might be a solution, but probably not the fastest one. Matthias -- I don't agree with this. The sponsorship process is as much an introduction to the community as a verification that someone understands the guidelines. It was valuable to me as a new packager in this context, and there is a lot of potential for the process to foster a sense of collaboration and community. --Pete -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Interested in co-maintaining acpi
Hi list, I am not currently a sponsored maintainer but have submitted a few review requests[1][2] as well as a proposed update to the acpi package[3]. The acpi package have not been updated in a while and I would like to offer to help out in any way that I can. In my first request[1] I have put some links to comments I have left on other review requests for anyone who wants to take a look. Regards Johan [1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1012391 [2] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020014 [3] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=988181 -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Interested in co-maintaining acpi
On Sun, 20 Oct 2013 22:12:15 +0200, Johan Swensson wrote: Hi list, I am not currently a sponsored maintainer but have submitted a few review requests[1][2] as well as a proposed update to the acpi package[3]. The acpi package have not been updated in a while and I would like to offer to help out in any way that I can. In my first request[1] I have put some links to comments I have left on other review requests for anyone who wants to take a look. Regards Johan [1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1012391 [2] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020014 [3] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=988181 I've put you on my bugzilla watch-list earlier this evening and will take a look at the comments/reviews and review requests you've made. If not later tonight already, tomorrow. Package acpi is owned by somebody, who hasn't left a single comment on all the open bug reports for it for a very long time, unfortunately. http://bugz.fedoraproject.org/acpi The non-responsive maintainer procedure has been started and interrupted before, this year in May: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/963890 That's not good. -- Michael Schwendt Fedora release 20 (Heisenbug) - Linux 3.12.0-0.rc5.git3.2.fc21.x86_64 loadavg: 0.04 0.12 0.13 -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
The trouble with metadata-extractor
Hi all, last April the following bug report was opened: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=947457 As I stated on bugzilla, metadata-extractor was just needed by JOSM. Updating metadata-extractor would break JOSM. Anyway I suggested to patch JOSM to use a newer version of metadata-extractor if he really needed it. I had no response at all. BTW, I am metadata-extractor maintainer, and not JOSM maintainer. This evening the submitter emailed me privately and I discovered that meanwhile, a new review request for a newer version of metadata-extractor was approved and now it is part of Fedora: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1004563 As I understand now, newer metadata-extractor is required by Apache Sorl and Apache Tika, which are not yet part of Fedora. He asked me to exchange our repository to simplify some build with maven. And with that I presume that he would like to have his package called metadata-extractor because he has troubles to build sorl and tika. I think all this have been handled very badly. He could have told why he needed a more recent version of metadata-extractor in the first place, the reviewer of #1004563 could have checked if the package followed the naming guidelines and/or have checked if the package was already in Fedora. I still think that my original plan (i.e. patching JOSM). was more sensible. What to do now? What do you think? If it helps, if it makes things easier, I can release the ownership of metadata-extractor and someone else can have good care. I just packaged it because, as an openstreetmap mapper, I longed to have JOSM in Fedora. Regards, Andrea. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
--Wl,-z,relro in LDFLAGS required?/Inconsistency when not using %configure
Hi,
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines?rd=Packaging/Guidelines#Compiler_flags
mentions only %optflags to be required for packages but I noticed that
%configure sets LDFLAGS to a value different than %optflags:
rpm --eval %configure
[...]
LDFLAGS=${LDFLAGS:--Wl,-z,relro }; export LDFLAGS;
[...]
Also using '%global _hardened_build 1' modifies %configure to add
-specs=/usr/lib/rpm/redhat/redhat-hardened-ld to LDFLAGS.
Therefore it seems that packages with a single Makefile where a package
maintainers set the CFLAGS according to the current guidelines are built
differently than packages using autoconf.
Do we need a %ldflags macro for packages not using %configure (or other
build systems with proper RPM macros)? Or do the LDFLAGS not matter if
CFLAGS are set properly?
Regards
Till
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: The trouble with metadata-extractor
Il 20/10/2013 23:37, Andrea Musuruane ha scritto: Hi all, last April the following bug report was opened: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=947457 As I stated on bugzilla, metadata-extractor was just needed by JOSM. Updating metadata-extractor would break JOSM. Anyway I suggested to patch JOSM to use a newer version of metadata-extractor if he really needed it. I had no response at all. BTW, I am metadata-extractor maintainer, and not JOSM maintainer. This evening the submitter emailed me privately and I discovered that meanwhile, a new review request for a newer version of metadata-extractor was approved and now it is part of Fedora: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1004563 As I understand now, newer metadata-extractor is required by Apache Sorl and Apache Tika, which are not yet part of Fedora. wrong, Apache tika is already part of Fedora and for question of time only for import some new libraries for Wildfly 8.x was disabled a module (tika-parsers https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1019650) but is required also , by some Bigdata (hadhoop) packages He asked me to exchange our repository to simplify some build with maven. And with that I presume that he would like to have his package called metadata-extractor because he has troubles to build sorl and tika. no i havent any trouble for me is the same I think all this have been handled very badly. He could have told why he needed a more recent version of metadata-extractor in the first place, the reviewer of #1004563 could have checked if the package followed the naming guidelines and/or have checked if the package was already in Fedora. I still think that my original plan (i.e. patching JOSM). was more sensible. What to do now? What do you think? If it helps, if it makes things easier, I can release the ownership of metadata-extractor and someone else can have good care. I just packaged it because, as an openstreetmap mapper, I longed to have JOSM in Fedora. regards gil Regards, Andrea. attachment: puntogil.vcf-- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: how to withdraw glusterfs from epel?
Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote: How about, if it's not an EPEL repo, you make a separate release package for it? Just like the epel-release package, but pinted to your repository, so it's a separate installation and not part of EPEL? Then it would be moe like repoforge, jpackage, Percona, and Jenkins repos. *-release packages (other than fedora-release or epel-release, of course) are not allowed in Fedora nor EPEL repositories. Kevin Kofler -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: --Wl, -z, relro in LDFLAGS required?/Inconsistency when not using %configure
Till Maas wrote:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines?rd=Packaging/Guidelines#Compiler_flags
mentions only %optflags to be required for packages but I noticed that
%configure sets LDFLAGS to a value different than %optflags:
rpm --eval %configure
[...]
LDFLAGS=${LDFLAGS:--Wl,-z,relro }; export LDFLAGS;
[...]
Also using '%global _hardened_build 1' modifies %configure to add
-specs=/usr/lib/rpm/redhat/redhat-hardened-ld to LDFLAGS.
Therefore it seems that packages with a single Makefile where a package
maintainers set the CFLAGS according to the current guidelines are built
differently than packages using autoconf.
Do we need a %ldflags macro for packages not using %configure (or other
build systems with proper RPM macros)? Or do the LDFLAGS not matter if
CFLAGS are set properly?
We already have one, it's called %{__global_ldflags}. You are indeed
supposed to set LDFLAGS of handwritten makefiles to that. The guidelines
need to be updated.
Kevin Kofler
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: svn build issue
Martin Gansser wrote:
There is a problem during the fedora 19+ package building related to svn:
-- Found Subversion: /usr/bin/svn (found version 1.8.3)
CMake Error at /usr/share/cmake/Modules/FindSubversion.cmake:83 (message):
Command /usr/bin/svn info /builddir/build/BUILD/guayadeque-svn1885
failed with output:
svn: E155036: Please see the 'svn upgrade' command
svn: E155036: The working copy at
'/builddir/build/BUILD/guayadeque-svn1885'
is too old (format 29) to work with client version '1.8.3 (r1516576)'
(expects format 31). You need to upgrade the working copy first.
Upstream's CMakeLists.txt does this:
FIND_PACKAGE(Subversion)
IF(Subversion_FOUND)
Subversion_WC_INFO(${PROJECT_SOURCE_DIR} GUAYADEQUE)
MESSAGE(Current revision is ${GUAYADEQUE_WC_REVISION})
SET( _GUREVISION_ ${GUAYADEQUE_WC_REVISION})
ELSE(Subversion_FOUND)
SET( _GUREVISION_ )
ENDIF(Subversion_FOUND)
In particular, this line:
Subversion_WC_INFO(${PROJECT_SOURCE_DIR} GUAYADEQUE)
runs svn info on the current directory to obtain the revision and store it
in the CMake variable GUAYADEQUE_WC_REVISION, which is then copies to the
CMake variable _GUREVISION_, presumably to show it in some about dialog or
something. And the tarball they ship is a working copy in an outdated format
(outdated SVN version). (IMHO, shipping SVN working copies rather than
exports as tarballs is broken in the first place.)
IMHO, just removing the .svn directories (i.e. converting the working copies
to a clean export) is the best fix, but you could also run svn upgrade in
the specfile (with BuildRequires: subversion) if you think it's important to
have the revision show up (but you could also manually specify
-D_GUREVISION_:STRING=1885 on the cmake command line to get that).
Kevin Kofler
(your friendly CMake expert from KDE SIG ;-) )
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
File IO-Async-0.61.tar.gz uploaded to lookaside cache by eseyman
A file has been added to the lookaside cache for perl-IO-Async: 14cbfa50027e0121a95a0f3e259b6d74 IO-Async-0.61.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-Async] Update to 0.61
commit c08778701839956385278d44cbb70fdb3fbdcafb
Author: Emmanuel Seyman emman...@seyman.fr
Date: Sun Oct 20 09:01:37 2013 +0200
Update to 0.61
.gitignore |1 +
perl-IO-Async.spec |5 -
sources|2 +-
3 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
---
diff --git a/.gitignore b/.gitignore
index 5cdbcfe..c57b96b 100644
--- a/.gitignore
+++ b/.gitignore
@@ -3,3 +3,4 @@ IO-Async-0.28.tar.gz
/IO-Async-0.58.tar.gz
/IO-Async-0.59.tar.gz
/IO-Async-0.60.tar.gz
+/IO-Async-0.61.tar.gz
diff --git a/perl-IO-Async.spec b/perl-IO-Async.spec
index feb7b1f..db737d5 100644
--- a/perl-IO-Async.spec
+++ b/perl-IO-Async.spec
@@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
Name: perl-IO-Async
-Version:0.60
+Version:0.61
Release:1%{?dist}
Summary:A collection of modules that implement asynchronous filehandle
IO
@@ -53,6 +53,9 @@ make test
%changelog
+* Sun Oct 20 2013 Emmanuel Seyman emman...@seyman.fr - 0.61-1
+- Update to 0.61
+
* Sun Sep 22 2013 Emmanuel Seyman emman...@seyman.fr - 0.60-1
- Update to 0.60
diff --git a/sources b/sources
index bfd694d..707e406 100644
--- a/sources
+++ b/sources
@@ -1 +1 @@
-12a0af13d9a53517eb9698869b365816 IO-Async-0.60.tar.gz
+14cbfa50027e0121a95a0f3e259b6d74 IO-Async-0.61.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
File JSON-2.61.tar.gz uploaded to lookaside cache by eseyman
A file has been added to the lookaside cache for perl-JSON: 8845531920cb311bfa84337db2525422 JSON-2.61.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-JSON] Update to 2.61
commit 08df63b2bc8926021112d657d400f3f185ad4236
Author: Emmanuel Seyman emman...@seyman.fr
Date: Sun Oct 20 09:11:03 2013 +0200
Update to 2.61
perl-JSON.spec |7 +--
sources|2 +-
2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
---
diff --git a/perl-JSON.spec b/perl-JSON.spec
index ff3a9a8..aea92c3 100644
--- a/perl-JSON.spec
+++ b/perl-JSON.spec
@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
Name: perl-JSON
Summary:Parse and convert to JSON (JavaScript Object Notation)
-Version:2.59
-Release:3%{?dist}
+Version:2.61
+Release:1%{?dist}
License:GPL+ or Artistic
Source0:
http://search.cpan.org/CPAN/authors/id/M/MA/MAKAMAKA/JSON-%{version}.tar.gz
@@ -69,6 +69,9 @@ make test
%{_mandir}/man3/*
%changelog
+* Sun Oct 20 2013 Emmanuel Seyman emman...@seyman.fr - 2.61-1
+- Update to 2.61
+
* Sat Aug 03 2013 Fedora Release Engineering rel-...@lists.fedoraproject.org
- 2.59-3
- Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_20_Mass_Rebuild
diff --git a/sources b/sources
index fee4252..a8d1015 100644
--- a/sources
+++ b/sources
@@ -1 +1 @@
-a73f5ec41ef71f46f7d50243f87380f0 JSON-2.59.tar.gz
+8845531920cb311bfa84337db2525422 JSON-2.61.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
File Mojolicious-4.49.tar.gz uploaded to lookaside cache by eseyman
A file has been added to the lookaside cache for perl-Mojolicious: f336b94efd22ffc58db36f8eb32e5430 Mojolicious-4.49.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-Mojolicious] Update to 4.49
commit 46a23283ca00d9ad382d5591a09c54da2ac50a24
Author: Emmanuel Seyman emman...@seyman.fr
Date: Sun Oct 20 09:15:48 2013 +0200
Update to 4.49
.gitignore|1 +
perl-Mojolicious.spec |5 -
sources |2 +-
3 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
---
diff --git a/.gitignore b/.gitignore
index 68547a6..cc03bcd 100644
--- a/.gitignore
+++ b/.gitignore
@@ -103,3 +103,4 @@ Mojolicious-0.26.tar.gz
/Mojolicious-4.41.tar.gz
/Mojolicious-4.44.tar.gz
/Mojolicious-4.46.tar.gz
+/Mojolicious-4.49.tar.gz
diff --git a/perl-Mojolicious.spec b/perl-Mojolicious.spec
index af7e158..2ff8add 100644
--- a/perl-Mojolicious.spec
+++ b/perl-Mojolicious.spec
@@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
Name: perl-Mojolicious
-Version:4.46
+Version:4.49
Release:1%{?dist}
Summary:A next generation web framework for Perl
License:Artistic 2.0
@@ -60,6 +60,9 @@ make test
%{_mandir}/man3/*
%changelog
+* Sun Oct 20 2013 Emmanuel Seyman emman...@seyman.fr - 4.49-1
+- Update to 4.49
+
* Sun Oct 13 2013 Emmanuel Seyman emman...@seyman.fr - 4.46-1
- Update to 4.46
diff --git a/sources b/sources
index 317c988..7815019 100644
--- a/sources
+++ b/sources
@@ -1 +1 @@
-6efdc4894e635768aea96b20f7f27db5 Mojolicious-4.46.tar.gz
+f336b94efd22ffc58db36f8eb32e5430 Mojolicious-4.49.tar.gz
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
perl-devel mailing list
perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/perl-devel
[Bug 1021206] New: perl-Gnome2-1.044 is available
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1021206 Bug ID: 1021206 Summary: perl-Gnome2-1.044 is available Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: perl-Gnome2 Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged Assignee: ppi...@redhat.com Reporter: upstream-release-monitor...@fedoraproject.org QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: mmasl...@redhat.com, perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org, ppi...@redhat.com, psab...@redhat.com Latest upstream release: 1.044 Current version/release in Fedora Rawhide: 1.043-1.fc21 URL: http://search.cpan.org/dist/Gnome2/ 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. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=mJecj6kpCUa=cc_unsubscribe -- 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 1021207] New: perl-Gtk3-0.014 is available
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1021207 Bug ID: 1021207 Summary: perl-Gtk3-0.014 is available Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: perl-Gtk3 Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged Assignee: berra...@redhat.com Reporter: upstream-release-monitor...@fedoraproject.org QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: berra...@redhat.com, perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Latest upstream release: 0.014 Current version/release in Fedora Rawhide: 0.013-1.fc21 URL: http://search.cpan.org/dist/Gtk3/ 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. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=bmwNacMQ9da=cc_unsubscribe -- 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 1021209] New: perl-Path-IsDev-1.000000 is available
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1021209 Bug ID: 1021209 Summary: perl-Path-IsDev-1.00 is available Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: perl-Path-IsDev Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged Assignee: jples...@redhat.com Reporter: upstream-release-monitor...@fedoraproject.org QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: jples...@redhat.com, perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org, ppi...@redhat.com Latest upstream release: 1.00 Current version/release in Fedora Rawhide: 0.6.0-1.fc21 URL: http://search.cpan.org/dist/Path-IsDev/ 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. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=cElXMKraUIa=cc_unsubscribe -- 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-MIME-Lite-HTML
perl-MIME-Lite-HTML has broken dependencies in the F-20 tree: On x86_64: perl-MIME-Lite-HTML-1.24-4.fc18.noarch requires perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.16.0) On i386: perl-MIME-Lite-HTML-1.24-4.fc18.noarch requires perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.16.0) On armhfp: perl-MIME-Lite-HTML-1.24-4.fc18.noarch requires perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.16.0) 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
Broken dependencies: perl-BerkeleyDB
perl-BerkeleyDB has broken dependencies in the F-20 tree: On x86_64: perl-BerkeleyDB-0.53-1.fc20.x86_64 requires libdb = 0:5.3.21 On i386: perl-BerkeleyDB-0.53-1.fc20.i686 requires libdb = 0:5.3.21 On armhfp: perl-BerkeleyDB-0.53-1.fc20.armv7hl requires libdb = 0:5.3.21 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
Broken dependencies: perl-Language-Expr
perl-Language-Expr has broken dependencies in the F-20 tree: On x86_64: perl-Language-Expr-0.19-4.fc19.noarch requires perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.16.2) On i386: perl-Language-Expr-0.19-4.fc19.noarch requires perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.16.2) On armhfp: perl-Language-Expr-0.19-4.fc19.noarch requires perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.16.2) 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
Broken dependencies: slic3r
slic3r has broken dependencies in the F-20 tree: On x86_64: slic3r-0.9.10b-2.fc20.noarch requires perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.16.3) On i386: slic3r-0.9.10b-2.fc20.noarch requires perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.16.3) On armhfp: slic3r-0.9.10b-2.fc20.noarch requires perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.16.3) Please resolve this as soon as possible. -- Fedora Extras Perl SIG http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl perl-devel mailing list perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/perl-devel
Broken dependencies: perl-PDL
perl-PDL has broken dependencies in the F-20 tree: On x86_64: perl-PDL-2.4.10-6.fc19.x86_64 requires perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.16.2) perl-PDL-2.4.10-6.fc19.x86_64 requires libgd.so.2()(64bit) On i386: perl-PDL-2.4.10-6.fc19.i686 requires perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.16.2) perl-PDL-2.4.10-6.fc19.i686 requires libgd.so.2 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
Broken dependencies: perl-Padre
perl-Padre has broken dependencies in the F-20 tree: On x86_64: perl-Padre-0.90-6.fc18.noarch requires perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.16.0) On i386: perl-Padre-0.90-6.fc18.noarch requires perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.16.0) On armhfp: perl-Padre-0.90-6.fc18.noarch requires perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.16.0) Please resolve this as soon as possible. -- Fedora Extras Perl SIG http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl perl-devel mailing list perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/perl-devel
[Bug 1020802] Slic3r crashes when loading config
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020802 --- Comment #4 from Miro Hrončok mhron...@redhat.com --- LAurent_B: Could you please test the update and add karma if it fixes your issue? Thanks. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=m4p4lCJMEHa=cc_unsubscribe -- 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 IPC-System-Simple-1.25.tar.gz uploaded to lookaside cache by pghmcfc
A file has been added to the lookaside cache for perl-IPC-System-Simple: fb49e674e1d52e8e5646d08507d7fda5 IPC-System-Simple-1.25.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-IPC-System-Simple] Update to 1.25
commit 40163f747e858ef983498308f7bb29483bbc
Author: Paul Howarth p...@city-fan.org
Date: Sun Oct 20 21:48:00 2013 +0100
Update to 1.25
- New upstream release 1.25
- No longer ship unrequired file Debian_CPANTS.txt (GH #7)
perl-IPC-System-Simple.spec |6 +-
sources |2 +-
2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
---
diff --git a/perl-IPC-System-Simple.spec b/perl-IPC-System-Simple.spec
index 70344a2..f8858b7 100644
--- a/perl-IPC-System-Simple.spec
+++ b/perl-IPC-System-Simple.spec
@@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
Name: perl-IPC-System-Simple
-Version: 1.24
+Version: 1.25
Release: 1%{?dist}
License: GPL+ or Artistic
Group: Development/Libraries
@@ -72,6 +72,10 @@ rm -rf %{buildroot}
%{_mandir}/man3/IPC::System::Simple.3pm*
%changelog
+* Sun Oct 20 2013 Paul Howarth p...@city-fan.org - 1.25-1
+- Update to 1.25
+ - No longer ship unrequired file Debian_CPANTS.txt (GH #7)
+
* Fri Oct 18 2013 Paul Howarth p...@city-fan.org - 1.24-1
- Update to 1.24
- No longer mark BSD::Resource as required (GH #6)
diff --git a/sources b/sources
index 91fc564..0eec8c0 100644
--- a/sources
+++ b/sources
@@ -1 +1 @@
-c4ce530eded7c8f0924ef37bb67328fb IPC-System-Simple-1.24.tar.gz
+fb49e674e1d52e8e5646d08507d7fda5 IPC-System-Simple-1.25.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-IPC-System-Simple/f20] Update to 1.25
Summary of changes: 40163f7... Update to 1.25 (*) (*) 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-IPC-System-Simple] Created tag perl-IPC-System-Simple-1.25-1.fc20
The lightweight tag 'perl-IPC-System-Simple-1.25-1.fc20' was created pointing to: 40163f7... Update to 1.25 -- 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-IPC-System-Simple] Created tag perl-IPC-System-Simple-1.25-1.fc21
The lightweight tag 'perl-IPC-System-Simple-1.25-1.fc21' was created pointing to: 40163f7... Update to 1.25 -- 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
