date:20131118

EPEL Fedora 5 updates-testing report

2013-11-18 Thread updates

The following Fedora EPEL 5 Security updates need testing:
 Age  URL
 576  
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2012-5630/bugzilla-3.2.10-5.el5
  90  
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2013-11276/ssmtp-2.61-21.el5
  66  
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2013-11560/fail2ban-0.8.10-4.el5
  30  
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2013-11893/libguestfs-1.20.12-1.el5
  10  
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2013-12067/drupal7-context-3.1-1.el5
   5  
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2013-12091/bip-0.8.9-1.el5


The following builds have been pushed to Fedora EPEL 5 updates-testing

kyotocabinet-1.2.76-5.el5

Details about builds:



 kyotocabinet-1.2.76-5.el5 (FEDORA-EPEL-2013-12141)
 A straightforward implementation of DBM

Update Information:

- Corrected wrong dependency of -devel from main to -libs package
- Always enable 8 byte atomics patch e.g. for ppc32 (#1007732 #c5)
- Fixed previously added patch for building under RHEL 5 (#915123)
- Added dependencies to enable lzo and lzma/xz compression support
- Enabled the built-in test suite (with limitations at RHEL 5 ppc)

ChangeLog:

* Sun Nov 17 2013 Robert Scheck rob...@fedoraproject.org 1.2.76-5
- Corrected wrong dependency of -devel from main to -libs package
- Always enable 8 byte atomics patch e.g. for ppc32 (#1007732 #c5)
- Fixed previously added patch for building under RHEL 5 (#915123)
- Added dependencies to enable lzo and lzma/xz compression support
- Enabled the built-in test suite (with limitations at RHEL 5 ppc)
* Sat Aug  3 2013 Fedora Release Engineering rel-...@lists.fedoraproject.org 
- 1.2.76-4
- Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_20_Mass_Rebuild


___
epel-devel mailing list
epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/epel-devel

EPEL Fedora 6 updates-testing report

2013-11-18 Thread updates

The following Fedora EPEL 6 Security updates need testing:
 Age  URL
 576  
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2012-5620/bugzilla-3.4.14-2.el6
  90  
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2013-11274/ssmtp-2.61-21.el6
  51  
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2013-11703/chicken-4.8.0.4-4.el6
  32  
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2013-11865/quassel-0.9.1-1.el6
  15  
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2013-12025/seamonkey-2.22-1.el6
  10  
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2013-12064/drupal7-context-3.1-1.el6
   5  
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2013-12079/bip-0.8.9-1.el6
   4  
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2013-12040/python-djblets-0.7.23-1.el6,ReviewBoard-1.7.18-1.el6
   4  
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2013-12102/moodle-2.4.7-1.el6


The following builds have been pushed to Fedora EPEL 6 updates-testing

gramps-3.4.6-1.1.el6
guacamole-server-0.8.3-4.el6
kyotocabinet-1.2.76-5.el6
librcd-0.1.14-2.el6
pam_url-0.3.3-1.el6
python-fn-0.2.13-1.el6
python-tahrir-0.4.4-1.el6
python-tahrir-0.4.5-1.el6
python-tahrir-api-0.4.2-2.el6

Details about builds:



 gramps-3.4.6-1.1.el6 (FEDORA-EPEL-2013-12139)
 Genealogical Research and Analysis Management Programming System

Update Information:

Fix broken non-critical dependency issues.
Latest upstream bugfix release.

Changes:

http://gramps-project.org/2013/10/gramps-3-4-6-released/

ChangeLog:

* Mon Nov 18 2013 Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com - 3.4.6-1.1
- Fix dependencies.
* Wed Nov 13 2013 Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com - 3.4.6-1
- Latest upstream.
* Thu May 30 2013 Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com - 3.4.5-2
- Add Requires for pyicu.
* Thu May 30 2013 Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com - 3.4.5-1
- The .We have also developed a tomato which can eject itself when
- an accident is imminent., a maintenance and bug fix release.
- The important change:
-  Problem after upgrading to 3.4.4 from 3.3.1
-
- Other changes are on reports:
-
-  Ability to keep custom filename on output
-  Book report: Sub reports forget/overwrite their settings when
-  trying to re-configure them
-  End of Line Report options window . changing Output Format cause
-  change active tab to .report options.
-  Various updated translations: de, es, fr, nb, nl, pl, sk




 guacamole-server-0.8.3-4.el6 (FEDORA-EPEL-2013-12140)
 Server-side native components that form the Guacamole proxy

Update Information:

Require FreeRDP 1.0.2 to fix screen refresh problems.

ChangeLog:

* Mon Nov 18 2013 Simone Caronni negativ...@gmail.com - 0.8.3-4
- Require FreeRDP version = 1.0.2 to avoid RDP refresh problems.




 kyotocabinet-1.2.76-5.el6 (FEDORA-EPEL-2013-12142)
 A straightforward implementation of DBM

Update Information:

- Corrected wrong dependency of -devel from main to -libs package
- Always enable 8 byte atomics patch e.g. for ppc32 (#1007732 #c5)
- Fixed previously added patch for building under RHEL 5 (#915123)
- Added dependencies to enable lzo and lzma/xz compression support
- Enabled the built-in test suite (with limitations at RHEL 5 ppc)

ChangeLog:

* Sun Nov 17 2013 Robert Scheck rob...@fedoraproject.org 1.2.76-5
- Corrected wrong dependency of -devel from main to -libs package
- Always enable 8 byte atomics patch e.g. for ppc32 (#1007732 #c5)
- Fixed previously added patch for building under RHEL 5 (#915123)
- Added dependencies to enable lzo and lzma/xz compression support
- Enabled the built-in test suite (with limitations at RHEL 5 ppc)
* Sat Aug  3 2013 Fedora Release Engineering rel-...@lists.fedoraproject.org 
- 1.2.76-4
- Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_20_Mass_Rebuild




 librcd-0.1.14-2.el6 (FEDORA-EPEL-2013-12143)
 Library for autodetection charset of Russian and Ukrainian text

Re: F21 System Wide Change: Headless Java

2013-11-18 Thread Stanislav Ochotnicky

Quoting Ville Skyttä (2013-11-15 18:30:33)
On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 3:22 PM, Stanislav Ochotnicky
sochotni...@redhat.com wrote:
http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/jing-trang.git/commit/?id=6d46e64fe0f365a947c7095adaf65e8cc2c90d5b

Ugh. Why did you have to do that?

Huh, wow, that's not at all the response I was expecting. What did you
expect to achieve with it?

Yeah, I guess I should have omitted that first sentence. My apologies. I
consider the rest still valid though

Anyway, I'll bite: the primary reason is because I've seen earlier
specfile mass modifications (automated as well as done by
non-maintainer humans) happen in a way I don't want to see happen to
packages I maintain. And it's already been a long time since the
availability of java-headless was announced. See also below.

It's been 3 weeks and even in that announcement thread I explicitly mentioned
guidelines not being fixed yet. But you are right, you are entitled to your own
style in your own packages (to a degree). So an opt-out system for automated
changes is probably needed.

Waiting until their dependency chain gets fixed would have been grossly
inefficient; there was no reason to wait for that, and still isn't.

There's a difference between deps being fixed and fixing all packages at once in
the same way.

That commit changed nothing because all the dependencies still have
Requires: java.

And what do you think will happen when the dependencies get fixed to
depend on java-headless? Oh, these packages don't need any action,
java-headless goodness just is suddenly available with them. So it did
change something after all, no? Progress needs to start somewhere, and
I helped by doing the bits applicable to my packages.

I don't know what ticked me off. Perhaps because you went seemingly ahead
without any regard for coordinated effort. If you wanted to speed it up, I'd
welcome if *you* created the change proposal and drove it. If you think that 800
packages are going to get fixed by a miracle when some maintainers don't even
fix
their packages that break dependent packages you are mistaken. If everyone
just fixed their packages to Requires: java-headless at their own discretion
I'll tell you when we'd actually notice the change: never.

I'd like to think that maintainers of those 800 packages are going to actually
make an effort but I know better from past experience. Unless their own package
is broken in serious way they won't care. It's the same in your case really, you
fixed your package so you don't care. But I care about all of those 800
packages. I just start to question why...

--
Stanislav Ochotnicky sochotni...@redhat.com
Software Engineer - Developer Experience

PGP: 7B087241
Red Hat Inc. http://cz.redhat.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: /usr/share/xsessions and window manager

2013-11-18 Thread Christopher Meng

On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 3:00 PM, Germán A. Racca
german.ra...@gmail.com wrote:
 Hi Christopher,

 I fail to see what is the wrong location in your opinion. Do you think that
 a window manager should install its desktop file in /usr/share/xsessions or
 in /usr/share/applications?

Hi,

From the GNOME sysadmin guide I found that window managers desktop
file should be handled underneath /usr/share/xsessions, but the state
now is that there are some packages install that file to
/usr/share/applications, so I'm puzzled now.

Thanks.

--

Yours sincerely,
Christopher Meng

Fєdоґa ї₴ al$о a кїпd оf нaт lїкє Яёd Haт.

http://cicku.me
-- 
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: File conflict when upgrading package

2013-11-18 Thread Florian Weimer


On 11/18/2013 12:44 AM, Mattias Ellert wrote:

sön 2013-11-17 klockan 22:12 +0100 skrev Sandro Mani:

Upgrading from xflr5-6.09.05-4.fc21.x86_64 to xflr5-6.09.05-5.fc21.x86_64 
however fails with
Transaction check error:
 file /usr/share/applications/xflr5.desktop from install of 
xflr5-6.09.05-5.fc21.x86_64 conflicts with file from
package xflr5-6.09.05-4.fc21.x86_64


You are replacing a directory with an ordinary file. The requires a
%pretrans script. %pretrans scripts must be written in lua:

%pretrans -p lua
st = posix.stat(%{_datadir}/applications/%{name}.desktop)
if st and st.type == directory then
   os.execute(rm -rf %{_datadir}/applications/%{name}.desktop)
end


Wow.  Shouldn't RPM support this out of the box?

--
Florian Weimer / Red Hat Product Security Team
--
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: File conflict when upgrading package

2013-11-18 Thread Panu Matilainen


On 11/18/2013 10:27 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:

On 11/18/2013 12:44 AM, Mattias Ellert wrote:

sön 2013-11-17 klockan 22:12 +0100 skrev Sandro Mani:

Upgrading from xflr5-6.09.05-4.fc21.x86_64 to
xflr5-6.09.05-5.fc21.x86_64 however fails with
Transaction check error:
 file /usr/share/applications/xflr5.desktop from install of
xflr5-6.09.05-5.fc21.x86_64 conflicts with file from
package xflr5-6.09.05-4.fc21.x86_64


You are replacing a directory with an ordinary file. The requires a
%pretrans script. %pretrans scripts must be written in lua:

%pretrans -p lua
st = posix.stat(%{_datadir}/applications/%{name}.desktop)
if st and st.type == directory then
   os.execute(rm -rf %{_datadir}/applications/%{name}.desktop)
end


Wow.  Shouldn't RPM support this out of the box?


Should? Sure, it seems like an obvious thing on the surface, but 
replacing directories within a transaction is very complicated due to 
removals happening after installs (and rpm's file fingerprinting semantics).


The new thing here is that rpm = 4.11 detects and reports the 
(unsupported) attempt to replace a directory with something else as a 
conflict, previously it just barfed up with cpio: rename failed - Is a 
directory error in middle of transaction.


An easier-than-pretrans-hack workaround is to just use a different 
filename for the file replacing the directory.


- Panu -
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

95 matches

Mail list logo