EPEL Fedora 5 updates-testing report
The following Fedora EPEL 5 Security updates need testing: Age URL 547 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2012-5630/bugzilla-3.2.10-5.el5 61 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2013-11276/ssmtp-2.61-21.el5 37 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2013-11560/fail2ban-0.8.10-4.el5 10 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2013-11811/mod_fcgid-2.2-12.el5 10 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2013-11813/libtar-1.2.11-14.el5 3 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2013-11879/scipy-0.6.0-7.el5 2 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2013-11887/salt-0.17.1-1.el5 1 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2013-11893/libguestfs-1.20.12-1.el5 The following builds have been pushed to Fedora EPEL 5 updates-testing python-socksipychain-2.0.12-4.el5 Details about builds: python-socksipychain-2.0.12-4.el5 (FEDORA-EPEL-2013-11914) A Python SOCKS/HTTP Proxy module Update Information: Tool for SOCKS or HTTP proxies sockets in Python. References: [ 1 ] Bug #910146 - Review Request: python-socksipychain - Python SOCKS/HTTP Proxy module https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=910146 ___ epel-devel mailing list epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/epel-devel
[Test-Announce] 2013-10-21 @ 15:00 UTC - Fedora QA Meeting
# Fedora Quality Assurance Meeting # Date: 2013-10-21 # Time: 15:00 UTC (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Infrastructure/UTCHowto) # Location: #fedora-meeting on irc.freenode.net Greetings testers! It's meeting time again! There's Beta stuff to discuss, of course, some follow ups from last week, and I also figured we could chat about Test Day result tracking. Any other agenda topics welcome! This is a reminder of the upcoming QA meeting. Please add any topic suggestions to the meeting wiki page: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA/Meetings/20131021 The current proposed agenda is included below. == Proposed Agenda Topics == 1. Previous meeting follow-up 2. Fedora 20 Beta status 3. Open floor -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net http://www.happyassassin.net ___ test-announce mailing list test-annou...@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test-announce -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: F21/F22 System Wide Change: Python 3 as the Default Implementation
On 18. 10. 2013 at 09:35:36, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 09:19:30AM +0200, Ales Kozumplik wrote: On 10/16/2013 11:13 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: * Need to clarify if the DNF bindings will exist for both python2 and python3 or just python3. This could affect releng, mock maintainer, etc. Until Anaconda is in Python 2, DNF will support both Py2 and Py3. Once Anaconda switches to Py3 DNF will officially drop support for Py2. Same for hawkey. At least that's the plan but we have no problem prolonging the Py2/Py3 period for a Fedora release or two. Though it would be very preferable to have a solid set date. Okay -- deciding on that date will likely also need to coordinate with releng, fedpkg maintainers (dgilmore who is also releng), and the mock maintainers. There may be other projects I'm not thinking of (yum-utils and createrepo are going to be ported to DNF-python3 by the packaging team already? ) I'm concerned about the tools used to build fedora and the tools used by package maintainers and testers to create packages. Some of them will be rewritten to Py3 but for example createrepo has now a C implementation and we are planning for that one to be the default. Oh also -- I've been assuming that the DNF python2 bindings will be compatible with the yum API. Is that the case? Sort of. The problem is that while yum has some sort of API, there is no official and well documented one, therefore some plugins and tools built on top of yum use some of its internals. The plan in this area is to define an API as similar to the old one as possible well before F21 and then dedicate one whole release to adapt tools using yum to dnf. Does that make sense? Thanks Jan -- 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
On 20/10/13 22:01, Pete Travis wrote: *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. Exactly what I meant! You'll learn a LOT when looking at other people's contributions, especially when forced to thing about it. 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: F21/F22 System Wide Change: Python 3 as the Default Implementation
On Mon, 2013-10-21 at 09:12 +0200, Jan Zelený wrote: On 18. 10. 2013 at 09:35:36, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: Oh also -- I've been assuming that the DNF python2 bindings will be compatible with the yum API. Is that the case? Sort of. The problem is that while yum has some sort of API, there is no official and well documented one, therefore some plugins and tools built on top of yum use some of its internals. The plan in this area is to define an API as similar to the old one as possible well before F21 and then dedicate one whole release to adapt tools using yum to dnf. Does it really have to be similar, though? I wrote a tool based on the Yum API at $dayjob, as well as two plugins. And I'll be honest, most of the Yum API is terrible. Or maybe it's just the fact that it's completely undocumented, and as a result I didn't use the good parts. But if we're going to be changing the tool and the language completely, wouldn't it make more sense to design a nicer API at the same time? -- Mathieu -- 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: F21/F22 System Wide Change: Python 3 as the Default Implementation
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 El Mon, 21 Oct 2013 09:12:40 +0200 Jan Zelený jzel...@redhat.com escribió: On 18. 10. 2013 at 09:35:36, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 09:19:30AM +0200, Ales Kozumplik wrote: On 10/16/2013 11:13 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: * Need to clarify if the DNF bindings will exist for both python2 and python3 or just python3. This could affect releng, mock maintainer, etc. Until Anaconda is in Python 2, DNF will support both Py2 and Py3. Once Anaconda switches to Py3 DNF will officially drop support for Py2. Same for hawkey. At least that's the plan but we have no problem prolonging the Py2/Py3 period for a Fedora release or two. Though it would be very preferable to have a solid set date. Okay -- deciding on that date will likely also need to coordinate with releng, fedpkg maintainers (dgilmore who is also releng), and the mock maintainers. There may be other projects I'm not thinking of (yum-utils and createrepo are going to be ported to DNF-python3 by the packaging team already? ) I'm concerned about the tools used to build fedora and the tools used by package maintainers and testers to create packages. Some of them will be rewritten to Py3 but for example createrepo has now a C implementation and we are planning for that one to be the default. we can not change to createreo_c without making sure it has feature parity first. While some releng tools call createreo and can be changed easily, there is also some using the python api. Right now it also does not have any deltarpm support, which is critical for our adoption. Oh also -- I've been assuming that the DNF python2 bindings will be compatible with the yum API. Is that the case? Sort of. The problem is that while yum has some sort of API, there is no official and well documented one, therefore some plugins and tools built on top of yum use some of its internals. The plan in this area is to define an API as similar to the old one as possible well before F21 and then dedicate one whole release to adapt tools using yum to dnf. Does that make sense? sure, hopefully all the releng tools are not using yum internals Dennis -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJSZOEvAAoJEH7ltONmPFDR1ecQALYwN11L4AUoRoCpxJWoMIfr /gxpJ8vtwsnd04x2x5qlTa5dkAdQ+WlFVbBkCWrUuZ0Iv97/kayryWOKIH8WWpDV tEl9iF2JWqik3ZDCamRGBo7TIePgyKjEQY2AzYF9gXEOPABBEIfoVpxTnlHPLi7x yvzQFJ9FT/wR1OiSGWklyfNRixHpLZpjJq5P1BjAR+daqElt9wrXe3RPCzEZo3Ye aNUER0pTu0KLVHknTqTBr74Unwh5Ox1+B7bSS47Ue2/VSwLBDTyC9vN8TbJ6HJqK pqRrLOHBXy/ouRRjy66ovsDQUzKoYtfmGeYXfKFCkIH02z6VWRHLklVUHRIEuTb9 QG6hcboLJJdUI5F3at5EJGBqgWQ1qyHuS34eJhN0GnODNl1efkVINzH8dY00KAya 5u9KaswrhY4uhbA0y3X+kA0LbO2TtSmprvj+zZaeL+Q+Hsljuz6tO9F+ACs32LSm 7/7v4o5iGXBsDoE1ks5NZn1CWdX4sH7BlmkCAqi8TMjod87OQ6qcmCGgREFO4w6Y y3wYsPq/UlwR9NRyUyjyCrp00Zw9cWc8UNH0ZVUsFcqxYkfW4nEH3JIc1w/FdVu/ WDjS4oqXZ/ynMuJjOEPIT4udh4Ov+S0j1ULSuL3jINJT16uRkI6Ige3P7X4Xo/Qh +UFWQ3MAanoOYG5t7R8B =XGLC -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
On 10/17/2013 05:19 AM, Luya Tshimbalanga wrote: I understand each one of us is busy with their life but a simple message would suffice to let know about the status. Is there a better way to address this concern to avoid repeating it in the future? Some numbers FYI: * We have 117 sponsors right now. * This year 83 people have been sponsored. * 191 people are waiting to be sponsored. * Oldest request is from 2008(!) - but there are recent work on this BZ. * Oldest change on BZs waiting for sponsor is from 2010. It would be nice if sponsors can sponsor at least one packager per year. On the other hand, even if I would have plenty of time, I would not sponsor more then 1 packager per quarter. -- Miroslav Suchy, RHCE, RHCDS Red Hat, Software Engineer, #brno, #devexp, #fedora-buildsys -- 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: F21/F22 System Wide Change: Python 3 as the Default Implementation
On 21. 10. 2013 at 15:47:20, Mathieu Bridon wrote: On Mon, 2013-10-21 at 09:12 +0200, Jan Zelený wrote: On 18. 10. 2013 at 09:35:36, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: Oh also -- I've been assuming that the DNF python2 bindings will be compatible with the yum API. Is that the case? Sort of. The problem is that while yum has some sort of API, there is no official and well documented one, therefore some plugins and tools built on top of yum use some of its internals. The plan in this area is to define an API as similar to the old one as possible well before F21 and then dedicate one whole release to adapt tools using yum to dnf. Does it really have to be similar, though? Well, there has to be some degree of compatibility so it does have to be similar, at least some of its parts. But that doesn't mean that it won't be extended. I wrote a tool based on the Yum API at $dayjob, as well as two plugins. And I'll be honest, most of the Yum API is terrible. Or maybe it's just the fact that it's completely undocumented, and as a result I didn't use the good parts. But if we're going to be changing the tool and the language completely, wouldn't it make more sense to design a nicer API at the same time? It is and we are certainly going to do that. We just need to keep many parts of the old one for a transitional period. If you have any suggestions regarding the API, feel free to contact Ales directly. Thanks Jan -- 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: F21/F22 System Wide Change: Python 3 as the Default Implementation
-- snip -- Some of them will be rewritten to Py3 but for example createrepo has now a C implementation and we are planning for that one to be the default. we can not change to createreo_c without making sure it has feature parity first. While some releng tools call createreo and can be changed easily, there is also some using the python api. Right now it also does not have any deltarpm support, which is critical for our adoption. I am aware of that and I am working on that one personally. -- snip -- Jan -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
[Bug 1021206] perl-Gnome2-1.044 is available
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1021206 Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED Fixed In Version||perl-Gnome2-1.044-1.fc21 -- 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=cxzJSHulnRa=cc_unsubscribe -- Fedora Extras Perl SIG http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl perl-devel mailing list perl-de...@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/perl-devel
How to create another one maillist?
Hello All! Unfortunately fedora create maillist doesn't give me a lot of related links, so I'd like to ask here. I want to create two additional maillists dedicated to the particular Fedora Language SIGs - one for Erlang, and another one for Golang. Could please anyone help me - where should I start? -- With best regards, Peter Lemenkov. -- 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 create another one maillist?
File a ticket in the infrastructure trac and it will get done -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.-- 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 create another one maillist?
On Mon, 21 Oct 2013 15:31:28 +0400 Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com wrote: - one for Erlang, and another one for Golang. Could please anyone help me - where should I start? Open a ticket with fedora infra, saying what you need. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Infrastructure/Tickets -- Regards, Frank www.frankly3d.com -- 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: gtk3 broken/missing icons on kde
On Sat, 2013-10-19 at 14:01 -0500, Rex Dieter wrote: Adam Williamson wrote: Hi folks, and welcome to the Fedora 20 Beta blocker bug news... can't find any criteria currently that covers application icons (though do mention it if such a thing exists)... At issue here are gtk3 applications that use non-standard (e.g. symbolic) icons look particularly bad on kde (or any desktop that doesn't use an icon theme that has does not have a fallback to gnome icon theme). See: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018390 (*) (includes screenshot), reported over a week ago without comment yet, so here am, soliciting feedback. If gtk applications need a gnome-icon-theme fallback to be fully functional, then depending on the currently configured icon theme to do it feels like the wrong approach to me. Kevin (Kofler) and I provided what I think are constructive and not unreasonable suggestions: * restore Net/FallbackIconTheme support * use a hard-coded gnome-icons fallback (instead of hicolor) In particular, adding a hard-coded fallback to gnome-icons in kde is not a particularly pleasing option (as mentioned in the bug already). Did you try with gtk 3.10.1 ? We've fixed the 'generic fallback' to drop -symbolic after exhausting other possibilities. E.g. for drive-harddisk-usb-symbolic we're now looking for drive-harddisk-usb-symbolic drive-harddisk-symbolic drive-symbolic drive-harddisk-usb drive-harddisk drive in that order. -- 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
On Mon, 21 Oct 2013 04:01:15 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
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.
Also raises the question whether we want more such packages to do
%configure || :
or the less sloppy
[ -f configure ] exit -1
echo '#!/bin/sh' configure
%configure
for exporting the flags?
--
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: 20131021 changes
Compose started at Mon Oct 21 09:15:03 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]
File Test-File-Contents-0.21.tar.gz uploaded to lookaside cache by pghmcfc
A file has been added to the lookaside cache for perl-Test-File-Contents: ba3abe6143d1055ccb81d741a481a190 Test-File-Contents-0.21.tar.gz -- Fedora Extras Perl SIG http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl perl-devel mailing list perl-de...@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/perl-devel
Re: bcache-tools and bcache support in other linux packages
Op 10/20/13 8:59 PM schreef Piergiorgio Sartor piergiorgio.sar...@nexgo.de: Does the tools converts the complete RAID-10, including the LVM volumes to bcache? I will look into the blocks tool for F21, but for now I leave answering the question to Gabriel. Some times ago I asked, in my setup, what would be the right approach to bcache, between caching the RAID or caching each LVM volume and the answer was that the usual way is to cache the RAID. Any changes on this statement? I can imagine that one may wish to (b)cache one specific LV and not the other(s) in the same VG in which case bcache is to be used on top of the specific LV. I think in general however it's best to use LVM on top of bcache because it's closer to the (slow) storage you want to accelerate. So I guess it depends on your requirements. I'm not sure if there are specific technical arguments in favour of one or the other. But I can say I've seen both work during testing. Rolf -- 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, On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 2:32 PM, Miroslav Suchý msu...@redhat.com wrote: On 10/17/2013 05:19 AM, Luya Tshimbalanga wrote: I understand each one of us is busy with their life but a simple message would suffice to let know about the status. Is there a better way to address this concern to avoid repeating it in the future? Some numbers FYI: * We have 117 sponsors right now. * This year 83 people have been sponsored. * 191 people are waiting to be sponsored. By looking into this page http://fedoraproject.org/PackageReviewStatus/NEEDSPONSOR.html , I see 60 people are need to be sponsored in the packager group. Are your numbers for all the available groups in FAS? Regards, Parag -- 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
On 10/21/2013 03:28 PM, Parag N(पराग़) wrote: Hi, On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 2:32 PM, Miroslav Suchý msu...@redhat.com mailto:msu...@redhat.com wrote: On 10/17/2013 05:19 AM, Luya Tshimbalanga wrote: I understand each one of us is busy with their life but a simple message would suffice to let know about the status. Is there a better way to address this concern to avoid repeating it in the future? Some numbers FYI: * We have 117 sponsors right now. * This year 83 people have been sponsored. * 191 people are waiting to be sponsored. By looking into this page http://fedoraproject.org/PackageReviewStatus/NEEDSPONSOR.html , I see 60 people are need to be sponsored in the packager group. Are your numbers for all the available groups in FAS? I use this query: http://tinyurl.com/ndp8ae7 which is - all bugs which blocks FE-NEEDSPONSOR - which include BZ with review flag set to ?. And yes, some BZs have same reporter. -- Miroslav Suchy, RHCE, RHCDS Red Hat, Software Engineer, #brno, #devexp, #fedora-buildsys -- 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, On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 7:08 PM, Miroslav Suchý msu...@redhat.com wrote: On 10/21/2013 03:28 PM, Parag N(पराग़) wrote: Hi, On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 2:32 PM, Miroslav Suchý msu...@redhat.commailto: msu...@redhat.com wrote: On 10/17/2013 05:19 AM, Luya Tshimbalanga wrote: I understand each one of us is busy with their life but a simple message would suffice to let know about the status. Is there a better way to address this concern to avoid repeating it in the future? Some numbers FYI: * We have 117 sponsors right now. * This year 83 people have been sponsored. * 191 people are waiting to be sponsored. By looking into this page http://fedoraproject.org/** PackageReviewStatus/**NEEDSPONSOR.htmlhttp://fedoraproject.org/PackageReviewStatus/NEEDSPONSOR.html, I see 60 people are need to be sponsored in the packager group. Are your numbers for all the available groups in FAS? I use this query: http://tinyurl.com/ndp8ae7 which is - all bugs which blocks FE-NEEDSPONSOR - which include BZ with review flag set to ?. And yes, some BZs have same reporter. I am not able to see your bugzilla query. All I see is https://bugzilla.redhat.com/buglist.cgi?cmdtype=runnamednamedcmd=reviewes%20need%20sponsorlist_id=1826234 Regards, Parag -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
communications and community [was Re: Lack of response about sponsorship]
On Sun, Oct 20, 2013 at 01:42:37AM +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote: A few years ago we've been much better at talking about things and coming to a conclusion. Nowadays I have the feeling the community is fragmented too much. With some people avoiding mailing-lists like the plague, some people lurking on IRC only, other people preferring web based forums, others addressing topics in personal blogs or during hallway meetings (and similar face-to-face situations). I have this same feeling. I think we need to fix it; do you have any thoughts or ideas as to how? -- Matthew Miller ☁☁☁ Fedora Cloud Architect ☁☁☁ mat...@fedoraproject.org -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
[389-devel] Please review Ticket 47566: Initial import of DSadmin into lib389 repos
lib389 implements a python library for 389-ds administrative operations. This review is the push of DSadmin ( https://github.com/richm/dsadmin ) into lib389 with few adaptation fixes. https://fedorahosted.org/389/attachment/ticket/47566/0001-Ticket-ticket47566-Initial-import-of-DSadmin-into-38.patch -- 389-devel mailing list 389-de...@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/389-devel
Re: quotacheck, quotaoff, and quotaon are going to be usr-moved
On 2013-10-16, Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com wrote: To finish usr-move, I'm going to change quota package in that way. /sbin/quotacheck, /sbin/quotaoff, and /sbin/quotaon files will be moved under /usr. Thanks all for the comments. This change is implemented in quota-4.01-11.fc21. -- Petr -- 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 10/20/2013 01:11 PM, Chris Murphy wrote: 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. If I specifically specify an existing regular partition or logical volume as swap and specify --noformat in the kickstart file, then the way it has been working is that such swap specifications are added to fstab. Currently, a bigger aggravation to me is that if I am just doing a install using the GUI, I cannot re-use an existing swap without reclaiming the space and thus reformatting it and having it get a new UUID. Of course if I have another system install into different partitions and it is also using that swap by UUID, it now will be screwed. Sometimes using UUID is not a good idea. This problem has been bugzill'ed. I was hoping the swap-fix would help with that but I believe it will not. 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: BEAST to be patched in NSS
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 09:49:29PM +0200, Miloslav Trmač wrote: On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 11:46 PM, Elio Maldonado emald...@redhat.com wrote: No one in the NSS team was consulted on this. I usually monitor the FESCO meetings announcements but missed this. I try to make sure that the relevant maintainers are always Cc:ed on the fesco tickets, I have missed this one. I'm sorry. I thought I had included the maintainer on the ticket but apparently I did not. Sorry. - -- Eric - -- Eric Sparks Christensen Fedora Project spa...@fedoraproject.org - spa...@redhat.com 097C 82C3 52DF C64A 50C2 E3A3 8076 ABDE 024B B3D1 - -- -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.14 (GNU/Linux) iQGcBAEBCgAGBQJSZTQUAAoJEB/kgVGp2CYv9wUL/1ZrrxrD8z1V5oWlPxFtusQ4 29k8QkoRCgYkako34EbPuIB4zh8w2ejWi/gPtyZQ7jfOsJN1s2Tv7bFEueY+cOt2 mK8aHRT3h8PTYHj+chO3h5ido98Wp6Swg6eLx2m1L8zQXU0p9oo9RkfjGg3QLPm+ 7hqEPOzlX8CPTtbf2CHgFX64zMgOO2qvOtBVgBeSrZiCyGq1Mj6kJFgj1vl4aHwj zhnhrbVzdpsHgS7os8mHtC+TdH6/Uw3ZSJEbj8hRjMqj03EHO/Z7a7A2+6hVidB6 hd+Das9QG/OZUcWAnR1xN03fDinM11gCGyaM6YFqlTw9Frhs6YebP7rc0WjfdMPB EbaiWAzna+ug5kzOukE9yMelqZGoCeUpkv0weCrCx+zO5fzYX7ODhE2IzYU/L1hb 2QO1idEceJxqC0Lb0MpP9hM1q/S8+qdyKcv238GzH/+e3EP3ttcVKbxnHXqK mRq1lfFm25g1zAmJnnlTLHKUS5dkYJNoC1JoYrECHg== =wMTK -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
[Owner-change] Fedora packages ownership change
Change in ownership over the last 168 hours === 5 packages were orphaned obexftp [devel,f20] was orphaned by rathann Tool to access devices via the OBEX protocol https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/acls/name/obexftp obexfs [devel,f20] was orphaned by rathann FUSE based filesystem using ObexFTP https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/acls/name/obexfs ctorrent [devel,f20] was orphaned by rathann Command line BitTorrent client for unix-like environments https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/acls/name/ctorrent gnomeradio [devel,f20] was orphaned by rathann Graphical FM-Tuner program for GNOME https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/acls/name/gnomeradio ddclient [EL-5,EL-6,devel,f18,f19,f20] was orphaned by robert Client to update dynamic DNS host entries https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/acls/name/ddclient 3 packages unorphaned - jskarvadunorphaned : pptp [EL-5,devel,f18,f19,f20] besser82unorphaned : quilt [EL-5,EL-6] ecashin unorphaned : aoetools [EL-6,devel,f19,f20] 5 packages were retired perl-MooseX-TrackDirty-Attributes [devel,f20] was retired by ppisar Track dirtied attributes https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/acls/name/perl-MooseX-TrackDirty-Attributes ovirt-engine [devel,f18,f19,f20] was retired by jhernand Management server for Open Virtualization https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/acls/name/ovirt-engine pyabiword [devel,f20] was retired by till Python bindings for libabiword https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/acls/name/pyabiword stout [EL-5,EL-6,devel,f18,f19,f20] was retired by besser82 C++ headers for building sturdy software https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/acls/name/stout nautilus-sound-converter [devel] was retired by bpepple Nautilus extension to convert audio files https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/acls/name/nautilus-sound-converter 4 packages changed owner limbgave to jariq : ipwatchd [EL-5] limbgave to orion : dyninst [EL-6] limbgave to dbmacartney: python-argcomplete [f20] limbgave to georgiou : perl-Term-Size [EL-6] Sources: https://github.com/pypingou/fedora-owner-change -- 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 21, 2013, at 7:58 AM, Gene Czarcinski g...@czarc.net wrote: If I specifically specify an existing regular partition or logical volume as swap and specify --noformat in the kickstart file, then the way it has been working is that such swap specifications are added to fstab. Regression in kickstart? I can't do this in the GUI. I have to reformat swap for some reason. My speculation is wrong in any case with GUI install, swap is still put in the fstab with anaconda 20.25.1-1 and RHBZ 1017509 still applies. Of course if I have another system install into different partitions and it is also using that swap by UUID, it now will be screwed. I agree, not friendly. Sometimes using UUID is not a good idea. This problem has been bugzill'ed. I was hoping the swap-fix would help with that but I believe it will not. So then the question is, if the disk is GPT, can/should systemd use UniquePartitionGUID in the GPT for swap partitions rather than the swap volume format UUID? The UniquePartitionGUID is more stable. 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
[Test-Announce] 2013-10-21 @ 16:00 UTC - F20 Beta Blocker Bug Review #4.5
# F20 Beta Blocker Review meeting #4.5 # Date: 2013-10-21 # Time: 16:00 UTC (12:00 EDT, 09:00 PDT) # Location: #fedora-blocker-review on irc.freenode.net Apologies for the extremely late notice, but we'll be doing a quick blocker review meeting following the QA meeting today, in 20 minutes' time, to clean through the current list of proposed blockers so we know the status ahead of Thursday's go/no-go meeting. We'll be running through the final blockers and freeze exception bugs. The current list 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_20_Beta_Release_Criteria For guidance on Blocker and FreezeException bugs, please refer to - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_blocker_bug_process - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_freeze_exception_bug_process For the blocker review meeting protocol, see -https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_Blocker_Bug_Meeting -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net http://www.happyassassin.net ___ test-announce mailing list test-annou...@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test-announce -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
[Test-Announce] Fedora 20 Beta Go/No-Go Meeting, Thursday, October 24 @ 17:00 UTC
Join us on irc.freenode.net in #fedora-meeting-2 for this important meeting, wherein we shall determine the readiness of the Fedora 20 Beta. Thursday, October 24, 2013 17:00 UTC (1 PM EDT, 10 AM PDT, 19:00 CEST) Before each public release Development, QA and Release Engineering meet to determine if the release criteria are met for a particular release. This meeting is called the Go/No-Go Meeting. Verifying that the Release criteria are met is the responsibility of the QA Team. For more details about this meeting see: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Go_No_Go_Meeting In the meantime, keep an eye on the Fedora 20 Beta Blocker list: http://qa.fedoraproject.org/blockerbugs/milestone/20/beta/buglist 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 Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: communications and community [was Re: Lack of response about sponsorship]
On 21 October 2013 07:52, Matthew Miller mat...@fedoraproject.org wrote: On Sun, Oct 20, 2013 at 01:42:37AM +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote: A few years ago we've been much better at talking about things and coming to a conclusion. Nowadays I have the feeling the community is fragmented too much. With some people avoiding mailing-lists like the plague, some people lurking on IRC only, other people preferring web based forums, others addressing topics in personal blogs or during hallway meetings (and similar face-to-face situations). I have this same feeling. I think we need to fix it; do you have any thoughts or ideas as to how? Don't we have this same conversation every two years? With pretty much the same questions and feeling of disconnectedness? We fix a couple of things, and then get back to doing stuff and then wake up and go where did everyone go? [I know we have had this almost exact conversation back in 2009 and almost the same in 2011. I remember something similar in 2007. It may happen more often than that but I remember those more clearly.] -- Stephen J Smoogen. -- 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: communications and community [was Re: Lack of response about sponsorship]
On Mon, 21 Oct 2013 09:52:32 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote: A few years ago we've been much better at talking about things and coming to a conclusion. Nowadays I have the feeling the community is fragmented too much. With some people avoiding mailing-lists like the plague, some people lurking on IRC only, other people preferring web based forums, others addressing topics in personal blogs or during hallway meetings (and similar face-to-face situations). I have this same feeling. I think we need to fix it; do you have any thoughts or ideas as to how? If people hate email lists in general (or the number of messages posted to them), it cannot be fixed. As a first step, I suggest clearing up the intended usage of devel list. There's too much traffic on that list. 792 messages so far in October. Even if one uses filtering, the recurring task of skimming over the devel list folder is tiresome, since it's not the only list one is subscribed to. Not even meetings logs are posted to devel-announce list, however. The intended usage of test list has always been a problem. Once in a while, somebody points that out, but there's nobody (no leadership) to work on a change actively. Is it only for Test releases or also for Rawhide? Its description is vague. Is there not any testing and quality assurance for non-Test releases? Why doesn't the packager group doesn't have an own list? Why is the description of the packaging list so brief and vague? Is it just me who cannot tell when to choose which list? [ This mailing list provides a discussion forum for RPM packaging standards and practices for Fedora. ] Where is a list that devotes to managing the Fedora Project and its multitude of policies and procedures? Such as the sponsorship process. The description of the advisory-board list is vague. Should it have been used for this thread instead of devel? Does FESCo still use a non-public list? What about the FPC? Are they limited to their IRC meetings? Why don't they talk about anything on packaging list? https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging_Committee#Discussions [ Discussion and decisions can also take place in the packaging mailing list. ] Who is in charge of defining the sponsorship process? Who believes the current process doesn't work? Does leadership think it doesn't work? Or is it only a few (frustrated?) package submitters, who don't want to attempt at contributing a single review in several months? In packagersponsors' trac I see sponsor request notification mails flying by, and becoming a co-maintainer even is one documented way to get sponsored. That part of the process works. In the review queue, I see that some submitters _do_ visit other tickets and comment on them, trying to learn about packaging for Fedora. Currently, I don't think much is wrong (or not working) with the sponsorship process. However, I'm not sure devel list is a good place for new contributors to get in contact with other packagers and potential sponsors. For example, there ought to be a list where advertising submitted review requests is officially permitted. -- 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: communications and community [was Re: Lack of response about sponsorship]
On 10/21/2013 04:08 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote: The intended usage of test list has always been a problem. Once in a while, somebody points that out, but there's nobody (no leadership) to work on a change actively. Is it only for Test releases or also for Rawhide? Its description is vague. Is there not any testing and quality assurance for non-Test releases? The intended usage of the test list has always been clear anything related to any testing as well as general QA community activy should be posted there and there was a time that was enforced and each test related topic or post on devel was redirected there. JBG -- 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: communications and community [was Re: Lack of response about sponsorship]
On Mon, 21 Oct 2013 18:08:09 +0200 Michael Schwendt mschwe...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, 21 Oct 2013 09:52:32 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote: A few years ago we've been much better at talking about things and coming to a conclusion. Nowadays I have the feeling the community is fragmented too much. With some people avoiding mailing-lists like the plague, some people lurking on IRC only, other people preferring web based forums, others addressing topics in personal blogs or during hallway meetings (and similar face-to-face situations). I have this same feeling. I think we need to fix it; do you have any thoughts or ideas as to how? If people hate email lists in general (or the number of messages posted to them), it cannot be fixed. As a first step, I suggest clearing up the intended usage of devel list. There's too much traffic on that list. 792 messages so far in October. Even if one uses filtering, the recurring task of skimming over the devel list folder is tiresome, since it's not the only list one is subscribed to. Not even meetings logs are posted to devel-announce list, however. Good idea. What items could we move to announce that would be more useful for folks that don't have as much time/energy to skim the main list? fesco meeting agenda/minutes? (note that this would be weekly, so increase the announce list a good deal) Any other things that would be better as announcements? The intended usage of test list has always been a problem. Once in a while, somebody points that out, but there's nobody (no leadership) to work on a change actively. Is it only for Test releases or also for Rawhide? Its description is vague. Is there not any testing and quality assurance for non-Test releases? Well, it's always been clear to me... test list is for any branched/rawhide issues. How can we improve the summary? Or does anyone disagree that that is the target? Why doesn't the packager group doesn't have an own list? Why is the description of the packaging list so brief and vague? Is it just me who cannot tell when to choose which list? [ This mailing list provides a discussion forum for RPM packaging standards and practices for Fedora. ] What would the 'packager' list talk about? 'packaging' is about current and changing packaging guidelines (ie, a list for the FPC). Where is a list that devotes to managing the Fedora Project and its multitude of policies and procedures? Such as the sponsorship process. The description of the advisory-board list is vague. Should it have been used for this thread instead of devel? I would say that is the devel list. Does FESCo still use a non-public list? There is a fesco private list, but it's very rarely used. In the past it's been for things like someone saying they won't make the next meeting or the like. Personally, I would prefer to just get rid of it. What about the FPC? Are they limited to their IRC meetings? Why don't they talk about anything on packaging list? https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging_Committee#Discussions [ Discussion and decisions can also take place in the packaging mailing list. ] They do/have in the past? I don't know why they haven't recently.. Who is in charge of defining the sponsorship process? FESCo. Who believes the current process doesn't work? At least a few folks on this thread I guess. Does leadership think it doesn't work? Or is it only a few (frustrated?) package submitters, who don't want to attempt at contributing a single review in several months? Not sure. I can only speak for myself, but I think we could do better... the long delays where people aren't sure they should be doing anything aren't good. In packagersponsors' trac I see sponsor request notification mails flying by, and becoming a co-maintainer even is one documented way to get sponsored. That part of the process works. In the review queue, I see that some submitters _do_ visit other tickets and comment on them, trying to learn about packaging for Fedora. Currently, I don't think much is wrong (or not working) with the sponsorship process. However, I'm not sure devel list is a good place for new contributors to get in contact with other packagers and potential sponsors. For example, there ought to be a list where advertising submitted review requests is officially permitted. This list should be fine for those, IMHO. 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: communications and community [was Re: Lack of response about sponsorship]
On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 12:26 PM, Kevin Fenzi ke...@scrye.com wrote: Good idea. What items could we move to announce that would be more useful for folks that don't have as much time/energy to skim the main list? I'm assuming you're referring to the devel-announce list, and not the general announce list, correct? fesco meeting agenda/minutes? (note that this would be weekly, so increase the announce list a good deal) +1 from me. -- Jared Smith -- 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: BEAST to be patched in NSS
Hello, On Sat, Oct 19, 2013 at 5:23 PM, Elio Maldonado Batiz emald...@redhat.com wrote: On 10/18/2013 06:54 PM, Elio Maldonado Batiz wrote: On 10/18/2013 12:55 PM, Miloslav Trmač wrote: On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 10:33 PM, Eric H. Christensen spa...@fedoraproject.org wrote: Information on this fix is in Bugzilla[1]. There are 80 packages affected, would it be possible to give the owners a shorter (and authoritative[1]) version, instead of asking each maintainer to fish the information out of a bug with 135 comments? * Can I test my package right now, before the NSS change lands? How? * If I need a workaround, what is the workaround? (Do I have to set an environment variable, or is there a way to do it in the API? If I do have to set an environment variable, do I have to do it at the very start before initializing NSS? Before opening the specific socket?, The update has been now to f20 updates-testing.https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-19396/nss-3.15.2-2.fc20 I could hold it back very shortly give folks time but we really would like this during beta so we get feedback. NSS checks the value of the SSL_CBC_RANDOM_IV_SSL variable and you could programmatically set it to 0 with setenv,for example [1]. snip There are 80 packages affected, would it be possible to give the It would useful if the list was available. (repoquery --whatrequires nss). Could those package owners be notified directly? That seems useful to me, yes. Mirek -- 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: communications and community [was Re: Lack of response about sponsorship]
On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 06:08:09PM +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote: I have this same feeling. I think we need to fix it; do you have any thoughts or ideas as to how? If people hate email lists in general (or the number of messages posted to them), it cannot be fixed. Hmmm; I don't know if that proposition is basically true. I'm also not sure about the conclusion, but, logically, if it is, we need to find a solution that isn't mailing lists. Maybe hyperkitty will present the perfect middle ground, but I think in order for that to be true we need to really present it as front and center. As a first step, I suggest clearing up the intended usage of devel list. There's too much traffic on that list. 792 messages so far in October. This is way down from the peak 5-7 years ago. Anyway, though, I think you're suggesting that the solution is more lists, more carefully defined and finely separated. That seems likely to make things more segregated, not less. -- Matthew Miller ☁☁☁ Fedora Cloud Architect ☁☁☁ mat...@fedoraproject.org -- 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: communications and community [was Re: Lack of response about sponsorship]
On 10/21/2013 06:08 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote: On Mon, 21 Oct 2013 09:52:32 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote: A few years ago we've been much better at talking about things and coming to a conclusion. Nowadays I have the feeling the community is fragmented too much. With some people avoiding mailing-lists like the plague, some people lurking on IRC only, other people preferring web based forums, others addressing topics in personal blogs or during hallway meetings (and similar face-to-face situations). I have this same feeling. I think we need to fix it; do you have any thoughts or ideas as to how? If people hate email lists in general (or the number of messages posted to them), it cannot be fixed. As a first step, I suggest clearing up the intended usage of devel list. There's too much traffic on that list. 792 messages so far in October. Openly said, I find your attitude disturbing. Open Source development requires open minds, which comprises open and occasionally heated controversial discussions. Hidding away in ivory towers, bunkers and closed circles is not the spirit can be open source development is based on. Ralf -- 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: communications and community [was Re: Lack of response about sponsorship]
On 21 October 2013 11:08, Matthew Miller mat...@fedoraproject.org wrote: On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 10:00:59AM -0600, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: Don't we have this same conversation every two years? With pretty much the same questions and feeling of disconnectedness? We fix a couple of things, and then get back to doing stuff and then wake up and go where did everyone go? [I know we have had this almost exact conversation back in 2009 and almost the same in 2011. I remember something similar in 2007. It may happen more often than that but I remember those more clearly.] This suggests we need a bigger fix. Well one of the problems is that most of the people I know who bring this up or feel this way are very concentrated on something else for some time and then when they get a break from that.. look around and don't feel connected with whatever is going on now. However that is pretty normal for humans.. the problems are that it is hard to get them reintegrated because the other groups are all concentrating on something else and won't care about the others unless a) it affects what they themselves are working on or b) they come up for air around the same time. The way human cultures deal with this normally is various social times (drinking, eating, talking, being around each other) which is a) hard with an online organization and b) something that many computer people hate doing. Fudcons help a bit in this but they really don't bring together the old group and new group together regularly enough to be a proper solution. The other way it works is that the people who feel like outsiders leave and go somewhere else to set up their own community or find a group they like they can link up with. This is what we see happen a lot and we fret about it constantly. -- Stephen J Smoogen. -- 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: communications and community [was Re: Lack of response about sponsorship]
On Mon, 21 Oct 2013 16:23:29 +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote: The intended usage of test list has always been a problem. Once in a while, somebody points that out, but there's nobody (no leadership) to work on a change actively. Is it only for Test releases or also for Rawhide? Its description is vague. Is there not any testing and quality assurance for non-Test releases? The intended usage of the test list has always been clear anything related to any testing as well as general QA community activy should be posted there and there was a time that was enforced and each test related topic or post on devel was redirected there. Kinda hard to parse that due to lack of punctation marks ;-) but: It is not only my impression what I've pointed out above. If users of existing stable dist release post to test list about Test Updates, regularly they are redirected to users list. If they are subscribed to users list only, they miss topics about Test Updates. Once the Test Update is marked stable but doesn't work, another thread is opened on users' list. So, discussing Test Updates for stable dist releases belongs onto which list? Further, F-20 Branched report is cross-posted to devel _and_ test list. This is bad, since not only is cross-posting frowned upon, replies to only either list start disconnected threads. And why is devel list so general that even the build reports get posted there? -- 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: communications and community [was Re: Lack of response about sponsorship]
On 10/21/2013 05:25 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote: So, discussing Test Updates for stable dist releases belongs onto which list? According to some in the QA community ( at least in the past ) any GA release test topic ( like update testing ) belongs on the user list. JBG -- 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: communications and community [was Re: Lack of response about sponsorship]
Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote: According to some in the QA community ( at least in the past ) any GA release test topic ( like update testing ) belongs on the user list. If that's true then the updates-testing mail for N and N-1 need to go to the user list. -- 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: communications and community [was Re: Lack of response about sponsorship]
On 10/21/2013 05:44 PM, Michael Cronenworth wrote: Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote: According to some in the QA community ( at least in the past ) any GA release test topic ( like update testing ) belongs on the user list. If that's true then the updates-testing mail for N and N-1 need to go to the user list. Or we could try to do what's right and move all and I mean all test related topics to the QA community on the test list. JBG -- 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: communications and community [was Re: Lack of response about sponsorship]
On Mon, 21 Oct 2013 13:07:25 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote: As a first step, I suggest clearing up the intended usage of devel list. There's too much traffic on that list. 792 messages so far in October. This is way down from the peak 5-7 years ago. What is the reason? More people avoiding MLs like the plague? Too many MLs? Too many communication channels other than email? I'm sure more traffic on the -announce lists will have critics pop up like mushrooms, too. It's still too much traffic on devel list. Do new packagers subscribe to it? Do they subscribe to packagers list? What experience have other people made? If I wanted to address all potential sponsors for packagers, what list would I post to? A couple of years ago, one would be informed well when following devel list. This has changed. A couple of years ago (also related to the old lists for Red Hat Linux distributions, not RHEL), one could be certain that a couple of important people (leaders) would see the post and react eventually or take it elsewhere. I have doubts it works like this anymore. Even during IRC meetings, one can see people moan about the work that would be necessary when changing policies/processes (= somebody preparing a beautiful draft first). Anyway, though, I think you're suggesting that the solution is more lists, more carefully defined and finely separated. That seems likely to make things more segregated, not less. https://lists.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo I think there are too many lists. Too many to choose from. I miss the dist-specific lists. I think there are too many lists with no description available. I think there are lists such as epel-announce that are superfluous, and it's highly likely that hardly anybody knows when to post to them. Watch the last few months: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/epel-announce/ Nobody paying attention there? Everyone happy with that? A put up or shut up reply might follow next. -- 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: communications and community [was Re: Lack of response about sponsorship]
On 21 October 2013 11:48, Michael Schwendt mschwe...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, 21 Oct 2013 13:07:25 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote: As a first step, I suggest clearing up the intended usage of devel list. There's too much traffic on that list. 792 messages so far in October. This is way down from the peak 5-7 years ago. What is the reason? More people avoiding MLs like the plague? Too many MLs? Too many communication channels other than email? I'm sure more traffic on the -announce lists will have critics pop up like mushrooms, too. It's still too much traffic on devel list. Do new packagers subscribe to it? Do they subscribe to packagers list? What experience have other people made? If I wanted to address all potential sponsors for packagers, what list would I post to? A couple of years ago, one would be informed well when following devel list. This has changed. A couple of years ago (also related to the old lists for Red Hat Linux distributions, not RHEL), one could be certain that a couple of important people (leaders) would see the post and react eventually or take it elsewhere. I have doubts it works like this anymore. Even during IRC meetings, one can see people moan about the work that would be necessary when changing policies/processes (= somebody preparing a beautiful draft first). Anyway, though, I think you're suggesting that the solution is more lists, more carefully defined and finely separated. That seems likely to make things more segregated, not less. https://lists.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo I think there are too many lists. Too many to choose from. I miss the dist-specific lists. I think there are too many lists with no description available. I think there are lists such as epel-announce that are superfluous, and it's highly likely that hardly anybody knows when to post to them. Watch the last few months: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/epel-announce/ Nobody paying attention there? Everyone happy with that? A put up or shut up reply might follow next. I am not saying shut-up but I am saying that I am confused by what you mean. First you seem to advocate more lists, then you advocate less lists. First you advocate too much email then you want more communication. I am guessing, and I really mean guessing that you mean that you want more signal and less noise but I going to guess that for most of the people sending email to the lists they believe they are sending signal and not noise.. so what we need is to know more about what you (and eventually everyone else) means by signal for you. Does what I say help any to clarify my confusion? -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct -- Stephen J Smoogen. -- 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: communications and community [was Re: Lack of response about sponsorship]
On Mon, 21 Oct 2013 19:16:53 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: On 10/21/2013 06:08 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote: On Mon, 21 Oct 2013 09:52:32 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote: A few years ago we've been much better at talking about things and coming to a conclusion. Nowadays I have the feeling the community is fragmented too much. With some people avoiding mailing-lists like the plague, some people lurking on IRC only, other people preferring web based forums, others addressing topics in personal blogs or during hallway meetings (and similar face-to-face situations). I have this same feeling. I think we need to fix it; do you have any thoughts or ideas as to how? If people hate email lists in general (or the number of messages posted to them), it cannot be fixed. As a first step, I suggest clearing up the intended usage of devel list. There's too much traffic on that list. 792 messages so far in October. Openly said, I find your attitude disturbing. Open Source development requires open minds, which comprises open and occasionally heated controversial discussions. Hidding away in ivory towers, bunkers and closed circles is not the spirit can be open source development is based on. ??? Wow, what a disturbing comment! How does it relate to anything I've written? And what is my attitude? -- 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: communications and community [was Re: Lack of response about sponsorship]
On Mon, 21 Oct 2013 11:57:06 -0600, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: I am not saying shut-up but I am saying that I am confused by what you mean. First you seem to advocate more lists, That could be a misunderstanding. Have I've phrased something very poorly. Then please tell and give me a chance to try again. then you advocate less lists. Correct. Less lists (or the same lists) and with a more well-defined target group and description. First you advocate too much email then you want more communication. I am guessing, and I really mean guessing that you mean that you want more signal and less noise but I going to guess that for most of the people sending email to the lists they believe they are sending signal and not noise.. so what we need is to know more about what you (and eventually everyone else) means by signal for you. Does what I say help any to clarify my confusion? More signal less noise doesn't cover it. I'd like to know what lists to use for what. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
[Bug 1021385] perl-Software-License-0.103006 is available
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1021385 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #3 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- Package perl-Software-License-0.103006-1.fc20: * should fix your issue, * was pushed to the Fedora 20 testing repository, * should be available at your local mirror within two days. Update it with: # su -c 'yum update --enablerepo=updates-testing perl-Software-License-0.103006-1.fc20' as soon as you are able to. Please go to the following url: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-19616/perl-Software-License-0.103006-1.fc20 then log in and leave karma (feedback). -- 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=80jPLaMaVUa=cc_unsubscribe -- Fedora Extras Perl SIG http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl perl-devel mailing list perl-de...@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/perl-devel
Re: communications and community [was Re: Lack of response about sponsorship]
On Mon, 21 Oct 2013 17:47:12 +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote: On 10/21/2013 05:44 PM, Michael Cronenworth wrote: Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote: According to some in the QA community ( at least in the past ) any GA release test topic ( like update testing ) belongs on the user list. If that's true then the updates-testing mail for N and N-1 need to go to the user list. Or we could try to do what's right and move all and I mean all test related topics to the QA community on the test list. Who knows whether that's right? Who thinks the current set of lists and their usage is right? I only point out my opinion. Okay, sometimes it's influenced by hearsay, but I hope that's okay. -- 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
On Mon, 21 Oct 2013 11:02:57 +0200, Miroslav Suchý wrote: On 10/17/2013 05:19 AM, Luya Tshimbalanga wrote: I understand each one of us is busy with their life but a simple message would suffice to let know about the status. Is there a better way to address this concern to avoid repeating it in the future? Some numbers FYI: * We have 117 sponsors right now. One problem here is that we need active sponsors for every special field of interest. Basically, every SIG, such as Java, OCaml, MinGW, ... * This year 83 people have been sponsored. * 191 people are waiting to be sponsored. Is the following page wrong? http://fedoraproject.org/PackageReviewStatus/NEEDSPONSOR.html * Oldest request is from 2008(!) - but there are recent work on this BZ. Probably the same reasons as with the normal review requests. Sometimes reviews have stalled because of bundled libs, licensing troubles, missing deps, waiting for upstream. http://fedoraproject.org/PackageReviewStatus/NEW.html * Oldest change on BZs waiting for sponsor is from 2010. Which ticket is that? Above page lists four tickets from 2011, but all have changed in 2013. It would be nice if sponsors can sponsor at least one packager per year. That's mandatory already, although some sponsors don't agree with it: Proposal for revitalizing the packager sponsorship model https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/839 -- 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
On Mon, 21 Oct 2013 21:38:18 +0200 Michael Schwendt mschwe...@gmail.com wrote: Is the following page wrong? http://fedoraproject.org/PackageReviewStatus/NEEDSPONSOR.html I see 59 people on that list. (many have more than 1 review they have filed) Not sure where the 191 number comes from? There's 194 bugs open against FE_NEEDSPONSOR, so I guess this is where that number comes from? 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
Introducing of Pierre Jourdain
Hello My name is pierre jourdain from france , i'm a student at Université de Picardie Jules Verne in Saint Quentin (INSSET) in embedeed electronics and computing . My experiences in computing things are relate to space systems securisation and communications . I'm using fedora since fedora 7 My FAS is pierre80 and my personal repo can be located at : http://pierre80.fedorapeople.org/ -- 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: Introducing of Pierre Jourdain
Le 21/10/2013 22:34, pierre%notspam%jourdain3[at_nospam]gmailnot_spam/com a écrit : Hello My name is pierre jourdain from france , i'm a student at Université de Picardie Jules Verne in Saint Quentin (INSSET) in embedeed electronics and computing . My experiences in computing things are relate to space systems securisation and communications . I'm using fedora since fedora 7 My FAS is pierre80 and my personal repo can be located at : http://pierre80.fedorapeople.org/ Hi, I'm number80 but we're not related, however welcome to the Fedora Community. Thank you for packaging coin coin, that was a missing feature in our repositories ^^ H. -- 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 Working Groups: Call for Self-Nominations
Miloslav Trmač (m...@volny.cz) said: On Sat, Oct 19, 2013 at 9:27 PM, Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at wrote: Miloslav Trmač wrote: No, the intent was very much to change what the resulting desktop prioritizes. Quite a few FESCo members would be rather disappointed if the new Workstation ended up just an unchanged GNOME[1]. [snip] [1] As opposed to any of 1) non-GNOME, 2) GNOME changed by Fedora, 3) GNOME upstream changing. I don't know enough to say whether any of these variants is generally preferred within FESCo. 2 features which would have changed that have been proposed over time: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/KDE_Plasma_Desktop_by_default https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/Cinnamon_as_Default_Desktop Both have been rejected by FESCo. Repeating myself, I don't know enough to say whether any of these variants is generally preferred within FESCo.. And I would argue that having the user interface swing wildly in design implementation based on the current composition of an elected board that is refreshed in part every six months is not the sort of situation that Fedora would want to be in anyway. (Of course, if it was, that would add an entirely different feel to the elections. Vote now in next month's elections to bring on people to completely change the proposed product split? Candidates running on 23 products instead of 3?) Bill -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
[389-devel] Please review: Ticket #434 admin-serv logs filling with admserv_host_ip_check: ap_get_remote_host could not resolve ip address
https://fedorahosted.org/389/attachment/ticket/434/0001-Ticket-434-admin-serv-logs-filling-with-admserv_host.patch -- 389-devel mailing list 389-de...@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/389-devel
Fwd: Broken dependencies: tika mvn(org.bouncycastle:bc*-jdk16:1.46)
any ideas? thanks regards Messaggio originale Oggetto:Broken dependencies: tika Data: Mon, 21 Oct 2013 21:01:15 + (UTC) Mittente: build...@fedoraproject.org A: tika-ow...@fedoraproject.org tika has broken dependencies in the rawhide tree: On x86_64: tika-parsers-1.4-2.fc21.noarch requires mvn(org.bouncycastle:bcprov-jdk16:1.46) tika-parsers-1.4-2.fc21.noarch requires mvn(org.bouncycastle:bcmail-jdk16:1.46) On i386: tika-parsers-1.4-2.fc21.noarch requires mvn(org.bouncycastle:bcprov-jdk16:1.46) tika-parsers-1.4-2.fc21.noarch requires mvn(org.bouncycastle:bcmail-jdk16:1.46) On armhfp: tika-parsers-1.4-2.fc21.noarch requires mvn(org.bouncycastle:bcprov-jdk16:1.46) tika-parsers-1.4-2.fc21.noarch requires mvn(org.bouncycastle:bcmail-jdk16:1.46) Please resolve this as soon as possible. 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: packaging guidelines again
Am 13.10.2013 22:04, schrieb Till Maas: On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 12:15:02PM +0200, Reindl Harald wrote: i get somehow tired to report bugs for several packages, refresh them at each release because maintainers ignore guidelines all the time some of them responded and fixed their packages some insist to ignore them thank you for your work. Can you please add pointers to the respective bug reports so that this can be escalated to FESCo? [root@srv-rhsoft:~]$ checksec --proc-all | grep No PIE X 21342 Partial RELRO Canary found NX enabled No PIE login 26045 Partial RELRO Canary found NX enabled No PIE alsactl642 Partial RELRO Canary found NX enabled No PIE mdadm651 Partial RELRO Canary found NX enabled No PIE upowerd704 Partial RELRO Canary found NX enabled No PIE avahi-daemon705 Partial RELRO Canary found NX enabled No PIE rtkit-daemon718 Partial RELRO Canary found NX enabled No PIE pulseaudio869 Full RELROCanary found NX enabled No PIE Also it would be nice if you ask FESCo to update the list at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Hardened_Packages to include the packages you noticed are missing there sorry for late answer, i was on the openssl party, but as excuse some more security relevant bugsreports below https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=319901#c108 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1019390#c3 _ here we go again for herdening issues X: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=983604 login: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=984181 alsactl: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1008385 mdadm: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=983615 upowerd: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1008400 avahi-daemon: unable to find my bugreport, pretty sure a made one rtkit: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=996735 pulseaudio: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=983606 policykit: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=983623 perl: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=984185 mailgraph (perl, long running, root): https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=990052 smokeping (perl, long running, root): https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=990055 gpsd: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1000643 firefox: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=973458 _ in fact Your package accepts/processes untrusted input raises again the question why not herden the complete distribution since Browsers, PDF readers, office suites, imageviewers and so on all are processing untrusted input at the end of the day please keep also in mind that this is only a small subset of processes running on my KDE homeserver while no graphical login is active listed in a ssh-session in fact there are *a lot* of more processes which can be considered as long running after login in the GUI and on always-on machines the KDE session is running for days signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital 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: Fwd: Broken dependencies: tika mvn(org.bouncycastle:bc*-jdk16:1.46)
Il 21/10/2013 23:32, punto...@libero.it ha scritto: any ideas? thanks regards Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6085254 Messaggio originale Oggetto:Broken dependencies: tika Data: Mon, 21 Oct 2013 21:01:15 + (UTC) Mittente: build...@fedoraproject.org A: tika-ow...@fedoraproject.org tika has broken dependencies in the rawhide tree: On x86_64: tika-parsers-1.4-2.fc21.noarch requires mvn(org.bouncycastle:bcprov-jdk16:1.46) tika-parsers-1.4-2.fc21.noarch requires mvn(org.bouncycastle:bcmail-jdk16:1.46) On i386: tika-parsers-1.4-2.fc21.noarch requires mvn(org.bouncycastle:bcprov-jdk16:1.46) tika-parsers-1.4-2.fc21.noarch requires mvn(org.bouncycastle:bcmail-jdk16:1.46) On armhfp: tika-parsers-1.4-2.fc21.noarch requires mvn(org.bouncycastle:bcprov-jdk16:1.46) tika-parsers-1.4-2.fc21.noarch requires mvn(org.bouncycastle:bcmail-jdk16:1.46) Please resolve this as soon as possible. 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: communications and community [was Re: Lack of response about sponsorship]
On 10/21/2013 07:48 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote: On Mon, 21 Oct 2013 13:07:25 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote: As a first step, I suggest clearing up the intended usage of devel list. There's too much traffic on that list. 792 messages so far in October. This is way down from the peak 5-7 years ago. What is the reason? More people avoiding MLs like the plague? Too many MLs? Yes, that's one aspect. Too many communication channels other than email? May-be, but I doubt this. Actually I think many new packagers aren't aware about the MLs and might be confused about which MLs to subscribe. I also believe contributors are unsubscribing from some MLs because they consider some of them to be polluted by bureaucratic chatter - It's what e.g. I consider the test and the perl-devel ML to be. Or they realize that Fedora lacks a culture of free mindedness and tolerance? A couple of years ago, one would be informed well when following devel list. This has changed. I share this experience and perception. devel@ has developed from a discussion forum to discuss development issues into a proclamation/announcement list. Ralf -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
[Bug 1021161] Perl mktime() still not Y2K38 compatible (even it should be)?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1021161 --- Comment #1 from Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com --- Isn't time_t always 32-bit on 32-bit x86 architecture? This is what you get from kernel and glibc. The -Duse64bitint is just to define perl's internal integer type to occupy 64-bits (i.e. typedef IV long). See config.h and perl.h: #if defined(USE_64_BIT_INT) defined(HAS_QUAD) # if QUADKIND == QUAD_IS_INT64_T defined(INT64_MAX) #define IV_MAX INT64_MAX [...] # else #define IV_MAX PERL_QUAD_MAX [...] # endif # define IV_IS_QUAD # define UV_IS_QUAD #else # if defined(INT32_MAX) IVSIZE == 4 #define IV_MAX INT32_MAX [...] # else #define IV_MAX PERL_LONG_MAX [...] # endif #endif -- 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=h331GVcMk5a=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 1021378] New: perl-Capture-Tiny-0.23 is available
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1021378 Bug ID: 1021378 Summary: perl-Capture-Tiny-0.23 is available Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: perl-Capture-Tiny Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged Assignee: psab...@redhat.com Reporter: upstream-release-monitor...@fedoraproject.org QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org, psab...@redhat.com Latest upstream release: 0.23 Current version/release in Fedora Rawhide: 0.22-4.fc21 URL: http://search.cpan.org/dist/Capture-Tiny/ 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=CV49p0VxZRa=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 1021383] New: perl-POE-Test-Loops-1.354 is available
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1021383 Bug ID: 1021383 Summary: perl-POE-Test-Loops-1.354 is available Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: perl-POE-Test-Loops Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged Assignee: psab...@redhat.com Reporter: upstream-release-monitor...@fedoraproject.org QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: mmasl...@redhat.com, perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org, psab...@redhat.com Latest upstream release: 1.354 Current version/release in Fedora Rawhide: 1.353-1.fc21 URL: http://search.cpan.org/dist/POE-Test-Loops/ 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=5ioFx7vKQqa=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 1021385] New: perl-Software-License-0.103006 is available
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1021385 Bug ID: 1021385 Summary: perl-Software-License-0.103006 is available Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: perl-Software-License Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged Assignee: berra...@redhat.com Reporter: upstream-release-monitor...@fedoraproject.org QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: berra...@redhat.com, iarn...@gmail.com, p...@city-fan.org, perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org, trem...@tremble.org.uk Latest upstream release: 0.103006 Current version/release in Fedora Rawhide: 0.103005-4.fc20 URL: http://search.cpan.org/dist/Software-License/ 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=bCYCkyrOEwa=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 Software-License-0.103006.tar.gz uploaded to lookaside cache by berrange
A file has been added to the lookaside cache for perl-Software-License: caed1a42a645a98e816344f3a1c8c947 Software-License-0.103006.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-Software-License] Update to 0.103006 release (rhbz #1021385)
commit 94058413e6f30bb97ca5143848fffa23d956cf19
Author: Daniel P. Berrange berra...@redhat.com
Date: Mon Oct 21 09:24:16 2013 +0100
Update to 0.103006 release (rhbz #1021385)
Signed-off-by: Daniel P. Berrange berra...@redhat.com
perl-Software-License.spec |7 +--
sources|2 +-
2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
---
diff --git a/perl-Software-License.spec b/perl-Software-License.spec
index 236fd30..7e3c2b4 100644
--- a/perl-Software-License.spec
+++ b/perl-Software-License.spec
@@ -2,8 +2,8 @@
%global old_test_more %(perl -MTest::More -e 'print (($Test::More::VERSION
0.88) ? 1 : 0);' 2/dev/null || echo 0)
Name: perl-Software-License
-Version:0.103005
-Release:4%{?dist}
+Version:0.103006
+Release:1%{?dist}
Summary:Package that provides templated software licenses
License:GPL+ or Artistic
Group: Development/Libraries
@@ -61,6 +61,9 @@ rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
%{_mandir}/man3/Software::LicenseUtils.3pm*
%changelog
+* Mon Oct 21 2013 Daniel P. Berrange berra...@redhat.com - 0.103006-1
+* Update to 0.103006 release (rhbz #1021385)
+
* Sun Aug 04 2013 Fedora Release Engineering rel-...@lists.fedoraproject.org
- 0.103005-4
- Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_20_Mass_Rebuild
diff --git a/sources b/sources
index 78633b1..1630f46 100644
--- a/sources
+++ b/sources
@@ -1 +1 @@
-e3d40a7306fb5b2ecc128f9def17b46c Software-License-0.103005.tar.gz
+caed1a42a645a98e816344f3a1c8c947 Software-License-0.103006.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 1021385] perl-Software-License-0.103006 is available
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1021385 Daniel Berrange berra...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Fixed In Version||perl-Software-License-0.103 ||006-1.fc21 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2013-10-21 04:48:48 --- Comment #1 from Daniel Berrange berra...@redhat.com --- Built as perl-Software-License-0.103006-1.fc21 -- 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=BkegvcuMEva=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
[perl-Software-License/f20] Update to 0.103006 release (rhbz #1021385)
Summary of changes: 9405841... Update to 0.103006 release (rhbz #1021385) (*) (*) 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-Software-License] Add Module::Load BR
commit 2509d75652c985b88f910a1207d34fd3a6977eae Author: Daniel P. Berrange berra...@redhat.com Date: Mon Oct 21 10:20:39 2013 +0100 Add Module::Load BR Signed-off-by: Daniel P. Berrange berra...@redhat.com perl-Software-License.spec |1 + 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) --- diff --git a/perl-Software-License.spec b/perl-Software-License.spec index 7e3c2b4..29f6cb3 100644 --- a/perl-Software-License.spec +++ b/perl-Software-License.spec @@ -19,6 +19,7 @@ BuildRequires: perl(Carp) BuildRequires: perl(Data::Section) BuildRequires: perl(ExtUtils::MakeMaker) BuildRequires: perl(File::Temp) +BuildRequires: perl(Module::Load) BuildRequires: perl(Sub::Install) BuildRequires: perl(Text::Template) BuildRequires: perl(Test::More) -- 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 1021422] New: Insufficient validation of PID file contents
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1021422
Bug ID: 1021422
Summary: Insufficient validation of PID file contents
Product: Fedora EPEL
Version: el6
Component: perl-File-Pid
Severity: low
Assignee: iarn...@gmail.com
Reporter: d.e.smorg...@usit.uio.no
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: iarn...@gmail.com, perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
External Bug ID: CPAN 89647
Created attachment 814502
-- https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=814502action=edit
Patch for Pid.pm and spec file
Description of problem:
File::Pid::running() passes undef as the PID argument to kill().
Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
1.01-2.el6.src.rpm
How reproducible:
100%
Steps to Reproduce:
First test case:
touch /tmp/frobozz.pid
perl -w -MFile::Pid -eFile::Pid-new({ file = '/tmp/frobozz.pid'
})-running();
Second test case:
echo /tmp/frobozz.pid
perl -w -MFile::Pid -eFile::Pid-new({ file = '/tmp/frobozz.pid'
})-running();
Third test case:
echo /tmp/frobozz.pid
perl -Tw -MFile::Pid -eFile::Pid-new({ file = '/tmp/frobozz.pid'
})-running();
Actual results:
First test case:
Use of uninitialized value $pid in chomp at /usr/share/perl5/File/Pid.pm line
175.
Use of uninitialized value $pid in chomp at /usr/share/perl5/File/Pid.pm line
175.
Use of uninitialized value $pid in kill at /usr/share/perl5/File/Pid.pm line
124.
not running
Second test case:
Argument isn't numeric in kill at /usr/share/perl5/File/Pid.pm line 124.
not running
Third test case:
Insecure dependency in kill while running with -T switch at
/usr/share/perl5/File/Pid.pm line 124.
Expected results:
In all three cases, merely
not running
Additional info:
Patch attached. Regression tests are left as an exercise for the reader.
--
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=8qnGB4l9lKa=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
[perl-Software-License/f20] Add Module::Load BR
Summary of changes: 2509d75... Add Module::Load BR (*) (*) This commit already existed in another branch; no separate mail sent -- Fedora Extras Perl SIG http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl perl-devel mailing list perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/perl-devel
[Bug 1021385] perl-Software-License-0.103006 is available
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1021385 --- Comment #2 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- perl-Software-License-0.103006-1.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-Software-License-0.103006-1.fc20 -- 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=hF0NOJ2swja=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 1021385] perl-Software-License-0.103006 is available
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1021385 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|CLOSED |MODIFIED Resolution|RAWHIDE |--- Keywords||Reopened -- 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=HaweFd4Q74a=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 Gnome2-1.044.tar.gz uploaded to lookaside cache by ppisar
A file has been added to the lookaside cache for perl-Gnome2: efbbdb5c506dfae22233d8564a632ce8 Gnome2-1.044.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-Gnome2] 1.044 bump
commit 9af781ef16021cbbf61e120e5161504412cdcf03
Author: Petr Písař ppi...@redhat.com
Date: Mon Oct 21 12:48:57 2013 +0200
1.044 bump
.gitignore |1 +
...3-Do-not-create-blib-lib-Gnome2-explictly.patch | 30
perl-Gnome2.spec |8 ++--
sources|2 +-
4 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 35 deletions(-)
---
diff --git a/.gitignore b/.gitignore
index 3e9ffd4..01bf7f2 100644
--- a/.gitignore
+++ b/.gitignore
@@ -1,2 +1,3 @@
Gnome2-1.042.tar.gz
/Gnome2-1.043.tar.gz
+/Gnome2-1.044.tar.gz
diff --git a/perl-Gnome2.spec b/perl-Gnome2.spec
index 4184640..3fa2216 100644
--- a/perl-Gnome2.spec
+++ b/perl-Gnome2.spec
@@ -1,13 +1,11 @@
Name: perl-Gnome2
-Version:1.043
+Version:1.044
Release:1%{?dist}
Summary:Perl interface to the 2.x series of the GNOME libraries
License:LGPLv2
Group: Development/Libraries
URL:http://search.cpan.org/dist/Gnome2/
Source0:
http://www.cpan.org/authors/id/X/XA/XAOC/Gnome2-%{version}.tar.gz
-# Fix build script, CPAN RT#89188
-Patch0: Gnome2-1.043-Do-not-create-blib-lib-Gnome2-explictly.patch
BuildRequires: libgnomeui-devel
BuildRequires: perl
BuildRequires: perl(Cwd)
@@ -45,7 +43,6 @@ more about GNOME+ at http://www.gnome.org/.
%prep
%setup -q -n Gnome2-%{version}
-%patch0 -p1
%build
perl Makefile.PL INSTALLDIRS=vendor OPTIMIZE=$RPM_OPT_FLAGS
@@ -67,6 +64,9 @@ make test
%{_mandir}/man3/*
%changelog
+* Mon Oct 21 2013 Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com - 1.044-1
+- 1.044 bump
+
* Wed Oct 02 2013 Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com - 1.043-1
- 1.043 bump
diff --git a/sources b/sources
index 82a9342..4a9b7ab 100644
--- a/sources
+++ b/sources
@@ -1 +1 @@
-b133e5025871c431b16ec10980e170bd Gnome2-1.043.tar.gz
+efbbdb5c506dfae22233d8564a632ce8 Gnome2-1.044.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] perl-Gnome2-1.044 is available
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1021206 --- Comment #1 from Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com --- This is a bugfix release suitable for all Fedoras. -- 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=ybclZYhyDka=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
[perl-Gnome2/f20] 1.044 bump
Summary of changes: 9af781e... 1.044 bump (*) (*) 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-Gnome2/f19] 1.044 bump
commit 7c272a52146cbb69f70ee25758fd23fe18915487
Author: Petr Písař ppi...@redhat.com
Date: Mon Oct 21 12:48:57 2013 +0200
1.044 bump
.gitignore |1 +
...3-Do-not-create-blib-lib-Gnome2-explictly.patch | 30
perl-Gnome2.spec |8 ++--
sources|2 +-
4 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 35 deletions(-)
---
diff --git a/.gitignore b/.gitignore
index 3e9ffd4..01bf7f2 100644
--- a/.gitignore
+++ b/.gitignore
@@ -1,2 +1,3 @@
Gnome2-1.042.tar.gz
/Gnome2-1.043.tar.gz
+/Gnome2-1.044.tar.gz
diff --git a/perl-Gnome2.spec b/perl-Gnome2.spec
index ab9bf29..388c186 100644
--- a/perl-Gnome2.spec
+++ b/perl-Gnome2.spec
@@ -1,13 +1,11 @@
Name: perl-Gnome2
-Version:1.043
+Version:1.044
Release:1%{?dist}
Summary:Perl interface to the 2.x series of the GNOME libraries
License:LGPLv2
Group: Development/Libraries
URL:http://search.cpan.org/dist/Gnome2/
Source0:
http://www.cpan.org/authors/id/X/XA/XAOC/Gnome2-%{version}.tar.gz
-# Fix build script, CPAN RT#89188
-Patch0: Gnome2-1.043-Do-not-create-blib-lib-Gnome2-explictly.patch
BuildRequires: libgnomeui-devel
BuildRequires: perl
BuildRequires: perl(Cwd)
@@ -45,7 +43,6 @@ more about GNOME+ at http://www.gnome.org/.
%prep
%setup -q -n Gnome2-%{version}
-%patch0 -p1
%build
perl Makefile.PL INSTALLDIRS=vendor OPTIMIZE=$RPM_OPT_FLAGS
@@ -67,6 +64,9 @@ make test
%{_mandir}/man3/*
%changelog
+* Mon Oct 21 2013 Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com - 1.044-1
+- 1.044 bump
+
* Wed Oct 02 2013 Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com - 1.043-1
- 1.043 bump
diff --git a/sources b/sources
index 82a9342..4a9b7ab 100644
--- a/sources
+++ b/sources
@@ -1 +1 @@
-b133e5025871c431b16ec10980e170bd Gnome2-1.043.tar.gz
+efbbdb5c506dfae22233d8564a632ce8 Gnome2-1.044.tar.gz
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
perl-devel mailing list
perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/perl-devel
[perl-Gnome2/f18] 1.044 bump
commit 5ec8aa639a3bd9637c33caa3463c41f54c57cab8
Author: Petr Písař ppi...@redhat.com
Date: Mon Oct 21 12:48:57 2013 +0200
1.044 bump
.gitignore |1 +
...3-Do-not-create-blib-lib-Gnome2-explictly.patch | 30
perl-Gnome2.spec |8 ++--
sources|2 +-
4 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 35 deletions(-)
---
diff --git a/.gitignore b/.gitignore
index 3e9ffd4..01bf7f2 100644
--- a/.gitignore
+++ b/.gitignore
@@ -1,2 +1,3 @@
Gnome2-1.042.tar.gz
/Gnome2-1.043.tar.gz
+/Gnome2-1.044.tar.gz
diff --git a/perl-Gnome2.spec b/perl-Gnome2.spec
index 3ce0efa..e563aed 100644
--- a/perl-Gnome2.spec
+++ b/perl-Gnome2.spec
@@ -1,13 +1,11 @@
Name: perl-Gnome2
-Version:1.043
+Version:1.044
Release:1%{?dist}
Summary:Perl interface to the 2.x series of the GNOME libraries
License:LGPLv2
Group: Development/Libraries
URL:http://search.cpan.org/dist/Gnome2/
Source0:
http://www.cpan.org/authors/id/X/XA/XAOC/Gnome2-%{version}.tar.gz
-# Fix build script, CPAN RT#89188
-Patch0: Gnome2-1.043-Do-not-create-blib-lib-Gnome2-explictly.patch
BuildRequires: libgnomeui-devel
BuildRequires: perl
BuildRequires: perl(Cwd)
@@ -45,7 +43,6 @@ more about GNOME+ at http://www.gnome.org/.
%prep
%setup -q -n Gnome2-%{version}
-%patch0 -p1
%build
perl Makefile.PL INSTALLDIRS=vendor OPTIMIZE=$RPM_OPT_FLAGS
@@ -67,6 +64,9 @@ make test
%{_mandir}/man3/*
%changelog
+* Mon Oct 21 2013 Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com - 1.044-1
+- 1.044 bump
+
* Wed Oct 02 2013 Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com - 1.043-1
- 1.043 bump
diff --git a/sources b/sources
index 82a9342..4a9b7ab 100644
--- a/sources
+++ b/sources
@@ -1 +1 @@
-b133e5025871c431b16ec10980e170bd Gnome2-1.043.tar.gz
+efbbdb5c506dfae22233d8564a632ce8 Gnome2-1.044.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-Software-License] Fix EL-5 support and tidy up buildreqs
commit ee29560c72b79df4d202284e150ee3d77576aa84
Author: Paul Howarth p...@city-fan.org
Date: Mon Oct 21 11:59:50 2013 +0100
Fix EL-5 support and tidy up buildreqs
- Update patch for building with old Test::More versions
- Update core buildreqs for completeness
... Software-License-0.103006-old-Test::More.patch |4 ++--
perl-Software-License.spec | 11 ---
2 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
---
diff --git a/Software-License-0.103005-old-Test::More.patch
b/Software-License-0.103006-old-Test::More.patch
similarity index 98%
rename from Software-License-0.103005-old-Test::More.patch
rename to Software-License-0.103006-old-Test::More.patch
index 4d251ce..f8e9ede 100644
--- a/Software-License-0.103005-old-Test::More.patch
+++ b/Software-License-0.103006-old-Test::More.patch
@@ -14,7 +14,7 @@
+END { $success; }
# List our own version used to generate this
- my $v = \nGenerated by Dist::Zilla::Plugin::ReportVersions::Tiny v1.08\n;
+ my $v = \nGenerated by Dist::Zilla::Plugin::ReportVersions::Tiny v1.10\n;
--- t/custom.t
+++ t/custom.t
@@ -2,7 +2,7 @@
@@ -70,7 +70,7 @@
-note 'Checking Changes';
+diag 'Checking Changes';
my $changes_file = 'Changes';
- my $newver = '0.103005';
+ my $newver = '0.103006';
my $trial_token = '-TRIAL';
@@ -14,8 +14,6 @@
ok(_get_changes($newver), $changes_file has content for $newver);
diff --git a/perl-Software-License.spec b/perl-Software-License.spec
index 29f6cb3..401bb5b 100644
--- a/perl-Software-License.spec
+++ b/perl-Software-License.spec
@@ -3,7 +3,7 @@
Name: perl-Software-License
Version:0.103006
-Release:1%{?dist}
+Release:2%{?dist}
Summary:Package that provides templated software licenses
License:GPL+ or Artistic
Group: Development/Libraries
@@ -11,14 +11,15 @@ URL:
http://search.cpan.org/dist/Software-License/
# For unknown reasons this module URL is currently missing
#Source0:
http://www.cpan.org/modules/by-module/Software/Software-License-%{version}.tar.gz
Source0:
http://search.cpan.org/CPAN/authors/id/R/RJ/RJBS/Software-License-%{version}.tar.gz
-Patch1: Software-License-0.103005-old-Test::More.patch
+Patch1: Software-License-0.103006-old-Test::More.patch
BuildRoot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(id -nu)
BuildArch: noarch
BuildRequires: perl(base)
BuildRequires: perl(Carp)
BuildRequires: perl(Data::Section)
BuildRequires: perl(ExtUtils::MakeMaker)
-BuildRequires: perl(File::Temp)
+BuildRequires: perl(File::Spec)
+BuildRequires: perl(IO::Dir)
BuildRequires: perl(Module::Load)
BuildRequires: perl(Sub::Install)
BuildRequires: perl(Text::Template)
@@ -62,6 +63,10 @@ rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
%{_mandir}/man3/Software::LicenseUtils.3pm*
%changelog
+* Mon Oct 21 2013 Paul Howarth p...@city-fan.org - 0.103006-2
+- Update patch for building with old Test::More versions
+- Update core buildreqs for completeness
+
* Mon Oct 21 2013 Daniel P. Berrange berra...@redhat.com - 0.103006-1
* Update to 0.103006 release (rhbz #1021385)
--
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] perl-Gnome2-1.044 is available
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1021206 --- Comment #2 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- perl-Gnome2-1.044-1.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-Gnome2-1.044-1.fc20 -- 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=kWG09VNI3Ba=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 1021206] perl-Gnome2-1.044 is available
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1021206 --- Comment #3 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- perl-Gnome2-1.044-1.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-Gnome2-1.044-1.fc19 -- 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=al6UV7Uohka=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 1021206] perl-Gnome2-1.044 is available
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1021206 --- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- perl-Gnome2-1.044-1.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-Gnome2-1.044-1.fc18 -- 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=kdrCkweErba=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
[perl-Software-License] Created tag perl-Software-License-0.103006-2.fc21
The lightweight tag 'perl-Software-License-0.103006-2.fc21' was created pointing to: ee29560... Fix EL-5 support and tidy up buildreqs -- 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-Kwalitee-1.17.tar.gz uploaded to lookaside cache by pghmcfc
A file has been added to the lookaside cache for perl-Test-Kwalitee: 7e6c1f69251b27f671a77b5136e3ecc9 Test-Kwalitee-1.17.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-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: 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-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: 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-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
[perl-Test-Kwalitee] Update to 1.17
commit 62578ba23dfc6df780f6ddc7c1232452be1efa89
Author: Paul Howarth p...@city-fan.org
Date: Mon Oct 21 12:26:02 2013 +0100
Update to 1.17
- New upstream release 1.17
- Now printing even more diagnostics on error (as much as we have
available)
- Package new CONTRIBUTING file
- Update buildreqs as needed
perl-Test-Kwalitee.spec | 24 +++-
sources |2 +-
2 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
---
diff --git a/perl-Test-Kwalitee.spec b/perl-Test-Kwalitee.spec
index 3fc1832..c2c2651 100644
--- a/perl-Test-Kwalitee.spec
+++ b/perl-Test-Kwalitee.spec
@@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
Name: perl-Test-Kwalitee
-Version: 1.15
+Version: 1.17
Release: 1%{?dist}
Summary: Test the Kwalitee of a distribution before you release it
License: GPL+ or Artistic
@@ -8,23 +8,23 @@ URL: http://metacpan.org/module/Test::Kwalitee
Source0:
http://cpan.metacpan.org/authors/id/E/ET/ETHER/Test-Kwalitee-%{version}.tar.gz
BuildArch: noarch
# Build
-BuildRequires: perl(Module::Build::Tiny) = 0.027
+BuildRequires: perl(Module::Build::Tiny) = 0.030
# Module
BuildRequires: perl(Cwd)
BuildRequires: perl(Dist::CheckConflicts) = 0.02
-BuildRequires: perl(Module::CPANTS::Analyse) = 0.87
+BuildRequires: perl(Module::CPANTS::Analyse) = 0.92
BuildRequires: perl(namespace::clean)
+BuildRequires: perl(strict)
BuildRequires: perl(Test::Builder) = 0.88
+BuildRequires: perl(warnings)
# Test Suite
-BuildRequires: perl(blib)
+BuildRequires: perl(CPAN::Meta)
+BuildRequires: perl(CPAN::Meta::Requirements)
BuildRequires: perl(ExtUtils::MakeMaker)
-BuildRequires: perl(File::Spec)
BuildRequires: perl(File::Spec::Functions)
BuildRequires: perl(File::Temp)
-BuildRequires: perl(IO::Handle)
-BuildRequires: perl(IPC::Open3)
+BuildRequires: perl(lib)
BuildRequires: perl(List::Util)
-BuildRequires: perl(Test::CheckDeps) = 0.007
BuildRequires: perl(Test::Deep)
BuildRequires: perl(Test::More) = 0.94
BuildRequires: perl(Test::Tester) = 0.108
@@ -54,7 +54,7 @@ chmod -c 755 %{buildroot}%{_bindir}/kwalitee-metrics
./Build test
%files
-%doc Changes LICENSE README
+%doc Changes CONTRIBUTING LICENSE README
%{_bindir}/kwalitee-metrics
%{perl_vendorlib}/Test/
%{_mandir}/man1/kwalitee-metrics.1*
@@ -62,6 +62,12 @@ chmod -c 755 %{buildroot}%{_bindir}/kwalitee-metrics
%{_mandir}/man3/Test::Kwalitee::Conflicts.3pm*
%changelog
+* Mon Oct 21 2013 Paul Howarth p...@city-fan.org - 1.17-1
+- Update to 1.17
+ - Now printing even more diagnostics on error (as much as we have available)
+- Package new CONTRIBUTING file
+- Update buildreqs as needed
+
* Wed Sep 25 2013 Paul Howarth p...@city-fan.org - 1.15-1
- Update to 1.15
- Re-release with fixed compile test
diff --git a/sources b/sources
index 4646a23..ce0032f 100644
--- a/sources
+++ b/sources
@@ -1 +1 @@
-5a9e5613ce2c345b75e56671f8c14645 Test-Kwalitee-1.15.tar.gz
+7e6c1f69251b27f671a77b5136e3ecc9 Test-Kwalitee-1.17.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-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
[perl-Test-Kwalitee] Created tag perl-Test-Kwalitee-1.17-1.fc21
The lightweight tag 'perl-Test-Kwalitee-1.17-1.fc21' was created pointing to: 62578ba... Update to 1.17 -- 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-File-Contents] Update to 0.21
commit 8b1f3e96fb5bf261ba6d04781433977ad43971f9
Author: Paul Howarth p...@city-fan.org
Date: Mon Oct 21 13:42:59 2013 +0100
Update to 0.21
- New upstream release 0.21
- Require Test::Pod 1.41 for Pod tests, fixing test failures due to the
use
of the 'Ltext|scheme' Pod syntax disallowed in earlier versions
- Eliminated v-string in use/require non-portable warning on Perl 5.10.0
- This release by DWHEELER - update source URL
- Don't need to remove empty directories from the buildroot
- Specify all dependencies
- Drop %defattr, redundant since rpm 4.4
- Make %files list more explicit
- Package README.md
.gitignore |3 +-
perl-Test-File-Contents.spec | 54 ++---
sources |2 +-
3 files changed, 36 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-)
---
diff --git a/.gitignore b/.gitignore
index e3bc640..d80c88b 100644
--- a/.gitignore
+++ b/.gitignore
@@ -1,2 +1 @@
-Test-File-Contents-0.05.tar.gz
-/Test-File-Contents-0.20.tar.gz
+/Test-File-Contents-[0-9.]*.tar.gz
diff --git a/perl-Test-File-Contents.spec b/perl-Test-File-Contents.spec
index 4d5fa4e..14072ed 100644
--- a/perl-Test-File-Contents.spec
+++ b/perl-Test-File-Contents.spec
@@ -1,21 +1,27 @@
Name: perl-Test-File-Contents
-Version:0.20
-Release:6%{?dist}
+Version:0.21
+Release:1%{?dist}
Summary:Test routines for examining the contents of files
License:GPL+ or Artistic
Group: Development/Libraries
URL:http://search.cpan.org/dist/Test-File-Contents/
-Source0:
http://www.cpan.org/authors/id/S/SK/SKUD/Test-File-Contents-%{version}.tar.gz
-BuildRoot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
+Source0:
http://www.cpan.org/authors/id/D/DW/DWHEELER/Test-File-Contents-%{version}.tar.gz
+BuildRoot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(id -nu)
BuildArch: noarch
+BuildRequires: perl(Digest::MD5)
+BuildRequires: perl(Exporter)
+BuildRequires: perl(File::Spec)
BuildRequires: perl(Module::Build)
+BuildRequires: perl(strict)
+BuildRequires: perl(Test::Builder) = 0.70
BuildRequires: perl(Test::Builder::Tester)
+BuildRequires: perl(Test::Builder::Tester::Color)
BuildRequires: perl(Test::More)
-BuildRequires: perl(Test::Pod)
-BuildRequires: perl(Test::Pod::Coverage)
-BuildRequires: perl(Text::Diff)
-BuildRequires: perl(Digest::MD5)
-Requires: perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_%(eval `%{__perl} -V:version`; echo
$version))
+BuildRequires: perl(Test::Pod) = 1.41
+BuildRequires: perl(Test::Pod::Coverage) = 1.06
+BuildRequires: perl(Text::Diff) = 0.35
+BuildRequires: perl(warnings)
+Requires: perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_%(eval `perl -V:version`; echo $version))
%description
Test routines for examining the contents of files.
@@ -24,16 +30,13 @@ Test routines for examining the contents of files.
%setup -q -n Test-File-Contents-%{version}
%build
-%{__perl} Build.PL installdirs=vendor
+perl Build.PL installdirs=vendor
./Build
%install
rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
-
./Build install destdir=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT create_packlist=0
-find $RPM_BUILD_ROOT -depth -type d -exec rmdir {} 2/dev/null \;
-
-%{_fixperms} $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/*
+%{_fixperms} $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
%check
./Build test
@@ -42,12 +45,23 @@ find $RPM_BUILD_ROOT -depth -type d -exec rmdir {}
2/dev/null \;
rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
%files
-%defattr(-,root,root,-)
-%doc Changes
-%{perl_vendorlib}/*
-%{_mandir}/man3/*
+%doc Changes README.md
+%{perl_vendorlib}/Test/
+%{_mandir}/man3/Test::File::Contents.3pm*
%changelog
+* Mon Oct 21 2013 Paul Howarth p...@city-fan.org - 0.21-1
+- Update to 0.21
+ - Require Test::Pod 1.41 for Pod tests, fixing test failures due to the use
+of the 'Ltext|scheme' Pod syntax disallowed in earlier versions
+ - Eliminated v-string in use/require non-portable warning on Perl 5.10.0
+- This release by DWHEELER - update source URL
+- Don't need to remove empty directories from the buildroot
+- Specify all dependencies
+- Drop %%defattr, redundant since rpm 4.4
+- Make %%files list more explicit
+- Package README.md
+
* Sun Aug 04 2013 Fedora Release Engineering rel-...@lists.fedoraproject.org
- 0.20-6
- Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_20_Mass_Rebuild
@@ -76,7 +90,7 @@ rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
- Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_15_Mass_Rebuild
* Wed Dec 22 2010 Marcela Maslanova mmasl...@redhat.com - 0.05-7
-- 661697 rebuild for fixing problems with vendorach/lib
+- Rebuild to fix problems with vendorarch/lib (#661697)
* Thu May 06 2010 Marcela Maslanova mmasl...@redhat.com - 0.05-6
- Mass rebuild with perl-5.12.0
@@ -91,7 +105,7 @@ rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
- Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_11_Mass_Rebuild
* Thu Mar 06 2008 Tom spot Callaway tcall...@redhat.com - 0.05-2
-Rebuild for new perl
+- Rebuild for new perl
* Mon Jul 16 2007
[perl-Test-File-Contents/f20] Update to 0.21
Summary of changes: 8b1f3e9... Update to 0.21 (*) (*) 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-File-Contents] Created tag perl-Test-File-Contents-0.21-1.fc21
The lightweight tag 'perl-Test-File-Contents-0.21-1.fc21' was created pointing to: 8b1f3e9... Update to 0.21 -- 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-File-Contents] Created tag perl-Test-File-Contents-0.21-1.fc20
The lightweight tag 'perl-Test-File-Contents-0.21-1.fc20' was created pointing to: 8b1f3e9... Update to 0.21 -- 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 914295] perl-MIME-Lite-HTML: FTBFS in rawhide
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=914295 --- Comment #7 from Xavier Bachelot xav...@bachelot.org --- Here's the upstream bug for MIME::Lite 3.029: https://rt.cpan.org/Public/Bug/Display.html?id=79944 -- 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=TUgBuJfkdIa=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-Language-Expr
perl-Language-Expr has broken dependencies in the rawhide 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: perl-MIME-Lite-HTML
perl-MIME-Lite-HTML has broken dependencies in the rawhide 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
[perl-MIME-Lite] Fix a bogus date in changelog
commit 0df766617a7b76f707036d56fe536012f168fa87 Author: Petr Šabata con...@redhat.com Date: Tue Oct 22 13:16:44 2013 +0900 Fix a bogus date in changelog perl-MIME-Lite.spec |2 +- 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) --- diff --git a/perl-MIME-Lite.spec b/perl-MIME-Lite.spec index a0577e3..5b7dce1 100644 --- a/perl-MIME-Lite.spec +++ b/perl-MIME-Lite.spec @@ -126,7 +126,7 @@ make test * Thu Feb 26 2009 Fedora Release Engineering rel-...@lists.fedoraproject.org - 3.01-8 - Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_11_Mass_Rebuild -* Fri Sep 2 2008 Paul Howarth p...@city-fan.org 3.01-7 +* Fri Sep 5 2008 Paul Howarth p...@city-fan.org 3.01-7 - fix FTBFS (#449558) * Sat Feb 2 2008 Tom spot Callaway tcall...@redhat.com 3.01-6 -- 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
