Re: Qt packages necessaries to develop for Android

[Eric Smith]

On Sun, Jun 8, 2014 at 8:36 PM, Isaac Cortés González <
w.isaac.cor...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I can look for any "patented" or closed source software
>

IANAL, but multiple lawyers have told me that it is generally a bad idea to
go looking for patents, at least in the US.  If they're brought to your
attention, you should probably do whatever is necessary to avoid them, but
you shouldn't actively seek them out, even just to try to confirm that
you're not using anything patented.
-- 
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: Current FTBFS packages (was Re: [ACTION REQUIRED] Retiring packages for Fedora 21)

[Dennis Gilmore]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On Mon, 9 Jun 2014 00:01:34 +0100
"Richard W.M. Jones"  wrote:

> On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 04:36:28PM -0400, Al Dunsmuir wrote:
> > On Monday, June 2, 2014, 2:53:33 PM, Till Mass wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 11:01:53AM +0200, Dan Horák wrote:
> > >> On Sun, 1 Jun 2014 11:24:09 +0200
> > >> Till Maas  wrote:
> > 
> > >> > yaboot   dwmw2, dwmw2, fkocina,
> > >> 
> > >> this is a secondary arch only package since F-12, so it should be
> > >> excluded from the FTBFS list in primary koji
> > 
> > > Actually according to Dennis this is a ppc32 package that can be
> > > retired, because ppc32 support is being dropped.
> > 
> > Till,
> > 
> > Please do not start deleting ppc32-only packages.
> > 
> > A  few  of  us  would  like  to resurrect ppc32, likely initially
> > as a Fedora   Remix.   Deleting  ppc32-only  packages  just  adds
> > more work to that effort.
> 
> Plus yaboot is still needed to boot ppc64 Macs, even on F20/F21.

no it doesn't that part of why ppc is no longer built at all.  f20 uses
yaboot for dvd and grub2 for the installed system, f21 is using grub2
everywhere.

Dennis
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux)
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=nDww
-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: Qt packages necessaries to develop for Android

[Isaac Cortés González]

So it's more a reason of manpower than any other thing. The question would
be: is there any to accomplish this task?

I can look for any "patented" or closed source software and if any of them
are critical to build the SDK and NDK. Also I'll ask to the Replicant
project for any hint/tip on this.
El jun 7, 2014 2:28 PM, "Rex Dieter"  escribió:

> drago01 wrote:
>
> > So I simply do not know whether the "remove patented code from he
> > tarball" is simply paranoia or there is really a legal reason for it.
>
> I've been asked by fedora-legal to remove stuff from tarballs on multiple
> occasions for this reason.
>
> -- Rex
>
> --
> devel mailing list
> devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
> Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

[Test-Announce] 2014-06-09 @ 15:00 UTC - Fedora QA Meeting

[Adam Williamson]

# Fedora Quality Assurance Meeting
# Date: 2014-06-09
# Time: 15:00 UTC
(https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Infrastructure/UTCHowto)
# Location: #fedora-meeting on irc.freenode.net

Greetings testers!

It's meeting time again soon! There's nothing urgent right now, but we
skipped last week so I figured we could do a check-in. Do reply with any
other agenda items that I've missed! Thanks, folks.

== Proposed Agenda Topics ==
1. Fedora 21 status
2. Taskotron 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: Current FTBFS packages (was Re: [ACTION REQUIRED] Retiring packages for Fedora 21)

[Richard W.M. Jones]

On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 04:36:28PM -0400, Al Dunsmuir wrote:
> On Monday, June 2, 2014, 2:53:33 PM, Till Mass wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 11:01:53AM +0200, Dan Horák wrote:
> >> On Sun, 1 Jun 2014 11:24:09 +0200
> >> Till Maas  wrote:
> 
> >> > yaboot   dwmw2, dwmw2, fkocina,
> >> 
> >> this is a secondary arch only package since F-12, so it should be
> >> excluded from the FTBFS list in primary koji
> 
> > Actually according to Dennis this is a ppc32 package that can be
> > retired, because ppc32 support is being dropped.
> 
> Till,
> 
> Please do not start deleting ppc32-only packages.
> 
> A  few  of  us  would  like  to resurrect ppc32, likely initially as a
> Fedora   Remix.   Deleting  ppc32-only  packages  just  adds more work
> to that effort.

Plus yaboot is still needed to boot ppc64 Macs, even on F20/F21.

Rich.

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

-- 
Richard Jones, Virtualization Group, Red Hat http://people.redhat.com/~rjones
Read my programming and virtualization blog: http://rwmj.wordpress.com
virt-top is 'top' for virtual machines.  Tiny program with many
powerful monitoring features, net stats, disk stats, logging, etc.
http://people.redhat.com/~rjones/virt-top
-- 
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 21 Mass rebuild update

[Kevin Fenzi]

The srpm buildroot was still broken, this time by rpkg. 

There was a rpkg build 2014-03-24 10:05:16 with a upstream version bump,
but it was untagged before going out in a rawhide compose and wasn't
ever fixed. Then the mass rebuild built it and landed it in the
buildroot. 

If you commit things to rawhide, please do make sure things are
usable/buildable, don't leave something for months later. ;) 

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: SSL cert rejected

[Jon Kent]

Hi,

Sorted it.  Instead of fedora-packager-setup I used fedora-cert to update
my certificate and it all working now.

Cheers,
jon



On Sun, Jun 8, 2014 at 8:00 PM, Jon Kent  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> That showing:
> fedora-cert -v
> Verifying Certificate
> cert expires: 2014-10-15
> CRL Checking not implemented yet
>
> Which looks good to me, unless I'm misreading this.
>
> Cheers,
> Jon
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, Jun 8, 2014 at 7:56 PM, Kevin Fenzi  wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 8 Jun 2014 19:52:21 +0100
>> Jon Kent  wrote:
>>
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > I getting the usual:
>> >
>> > Could not execute new_sources: Lookaside failure: (58, 'SSL peer
>> > rejected your certificate as revoked.')
>>
>> Note that you can only have one valid cert at a time.
>> >
>> > when running 'fedpkg new-sources', even though I've re-run
>> > fedora-packager-setup.  Is there a problem, or I am missing something?
>>
>> What does 'fedora-cert -v' show?
>>
>> kevin
>>
>> --
>> devel mailing list
>> devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
>> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
>> Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
>>
>
>
>
> --
> http://about.me/jonkent
>



-- 
http://about.me/jonkent
-- 
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 21 Mass rebuild update

[Michael Schwendt]

On Sun, 8 Jun 2014 12:37:00 -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote:

> lvm2's spec isn't very friendly to the rpmdev-bumpspec script that the
> mass rebuild uses, so it is a bit messed up. They seem to redefine
> 'release' for every subpackage and the bumpspec script tries to
> increment all of them and the versions then don't match up. 

Current upstream version [1] would handle it, if %release were defined
like this:

  %global release 4%{?dist}

  Release: %{release}

Then the script doesn't touch the subpackage Release tags anymore,
because it considers this (and %baserelease found in very old Fedora spec
files) a special case.

Redefining %release in subpackage Release tags using the %release macro
makes no sense and is error-prone, too, because if it defined a different
release value actually, that would change the value of %release for the rest
of the spec file and bears of a risk of referring to the wrong value in
manual Requires, Provides, …

There are only a very few spec files at Fedora that do things like that
or apply macro-madness.

[1] https://git.fedorahosted.org/cgit/rpmdevtools.git/plain/rpmdev-bumpspec
-- 
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: Another bug on OpenSSL

[Nico Kadel-Garcia]

It's not stable yet, and it's not ported to other operating systems.
the folks over at OpenBSD do import some powerful security tools and
keep them clean, such SSH. (No, they didn't writ it, they ported it
and maintain the core code.)

But that means it's unlikely to work well on other operating systems
until it's ported back: The folks there have some interesting policies
about randomization, chroot behavior, and coding to OpenBSD, not any
other OS, that will keep  it unstable for a while on other operating
systems.

Now, if you've got the expertise and time to help with that, it seems
a well founded and sensible project.


On Sun, Jun 8, 2014 at 10:34 AM, Jon Kent  wrote:
> At present I have more trust in the OpenBSD guys than OpenSSL based upon
> their previous work. So I'd prefer to move to LibreSSL once stable
>
> Just my 2c worth.
>
> Jon
>
> On 8 Jun 2014 15:21, "Álvaro Castillo"  wrote:
>>
>> Dear mailing list,
>>
>> Few days was built an patch to solve an another vulnerability into
>>
>> OpenSSL(http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/06/05/new-bug-found-in-widely-used-openssl-encryption/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0).
>> Some sources talks about that's bug was discovered a long time ago but
>> does not fixed.
>>
>> However, OpenBSD was created a fork called LibreSSL try to solve this
>> issues. Should Fedora to move LibreSSL (http://www.libressl.org/)? Or
>> still use OpenSSL and wait what's bug could be found today, or
>> tomorrow, or few months to go similar Adobe Flash bugs?
>> --
>> devel mailing list
>> devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
>> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
>> Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
>
>
> --
> devel mailing list
> devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
> Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
-- 
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: SSL cert rejected

[Jon Kent]

Hi,

That showing:
fedora-cert -v
Verifying Certificate
cert expires: 2014-10-15
CRL Checking not implemented yet

Which looks good to me, unless I'm misreading this.

Cheers,
Jon





On Sun, Jun 8, 2014 at 7:56 PM, Kevin Fenzi  wrote:

> On Sun, 8 Jun 2014 19:52:21 +0100
> Jon Kent  wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > I getting the usual:
> >
> > Could not execute new_sources: Lookaside failure: (58, 'SSL peer
> > rejected your certificate as revoked.')
>
> Note that you can only have one valid cert at a time.
> >
> > when running 'fedpkg new-sources', even though I've re-run
> > fedora-packager-setup.  Is there a problem, or I am missing something?
>
> What does 'fedora-cert -v' show?
>
> kevin
>
> --
> devel mailing list
> devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
> Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
>



-- 
http://about.me/jonkent
-- 
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: SSL cert rejected

[Kevin Fenzi]

On Sun, 8 Jun 2014 19:52:21 +0100
Jon Kent  wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> I getting the usual:
> 
> Could not execute new_sources: Lookaside failure: (58, 'SSL peer
> rejected your certificate as revoked.')

Note that you can only have one valid cert at a time. 
> 
> when running 'fedpkg new-sources', even though I've re-run
> fedora-packager-setup.  Is there a problem, or I am missing something?

What does 'fedora-cert -v' show?

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

SSL cert rejected

[Jon Kent]

Hi,

I getting the usual:

Could not execute new_sources: Lookaside failure: (58, 'SSL peer rejected
your certificate as revoked.')

when running 'fedpkg new-sources', even though I've re-run
fedora-packager-setup.  Is there a problem, or I am missing something?

Thanks,

Jon
-- 
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 21 Mass rebuild update

[Kevin Fenzi]

On Sun, 08 Jun 2014 20:20:32 +0200
"punto...@libero.it"  wrote:

> hi
> thanks for your work!
> 
> now i have some problems for rebuild my packages
> 
> DEBUG util.py:331:  Executing command: ['/usr/bin/yum',
> '--installroot', '/var/lib/mock/f21-build-2154600-393050/root/',
> 'groupinstall', 'srpm-build', '--setopt=tsflags=nocontexts'] with env
> {'LANG': 'en_US.UTF-8', 'TERM': 'vt100', 'SHELL': '/bin/bash',
> 'LC_MESSAGES': 'C', 'PROMPT_COMMAND': 'echo -n ""',
> 'PATH': '/usr/bin:/bin:/usr/sbin:/sbin', 'HOME': '/builddir',
> 'HOSTNAME': 'mock'} DEBUG util.py:281:  There is no installed groups
> file. DEBUG util.py:281:  Maybe run: yum groups mark convert (see man
> yum) DEBUG util.py:281:  Error: Package:
> device-mapper-libs-1.02.85-4.fc21.1.1.1.i686 (build) DEBUG
> util.py:281: Requires: device-mapper =
> 1.02.85-4.fc21.1.1.1 DEBUG util.py:281: Available:
> device-mapper-1.02.85-4.fc21.1.i686 (build) DEBUG
> util.py:281: device-mapper = 1.02.85-4.fc21.1 DEBUG
> util.py:281:   You could try using --skip-broken to work around the
> problem DEBUG util.py:281:   You could try running: rpm -Va --nofiles
> --nodigest DEBUG util.py:371:  Child return code was: 1
> 
> Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=7022888

lvm2's spec isn't very friendly to the rpmdev-bumpspec script that the
mass rebuild uses, so it is a bit messed up. They seem to redefine
'release' for every subpackage and the bumpspec script tries to
increment all of them and the versions then don't match up. 

I've untagged it for now... when this finishes:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=7022907
it should hopefully be back to normal. 

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: Fedora 21 Mass rebuild update

[Peter Robinson]

>> Hi All,
>>
>> I am in the process of tagging the mass rebuild into f21 it will land
>> in the next rawhide which due to the size will take some time to
>> compose, and sync out to the mirrors
>>
>> The tagging script tells me it is "Checking 13923 builds..." there is a
>> very large number of failures[1]. There seems to be a very large number
>> of java and ruby failures. so people interested in those stacks please
>> get onto them and fix them quickly
>>
>> Regards,
>> Dennis
>>
>> [1] http://ausil.fedorapeople.org/f21-failures.html
>>
>> On Sat, 7 Jun 2014 08:51:06 -0500
>> Dennis Gilmore  wrote:
>
> hi
> thanks for your work!
>
> now i have some problems for rebuild my packages
>
> DEBUG util.py:331:  Executing command: ['/usr/bin/yum', '--installroot',
> '/var/lib/mock/f21-build-2154600-393050/root/', 'groupinstall',
> 'srpm-build', '--setopt=tsflags=nocontexts'] with env {'LANG':
> 'en_US.UTF-8', 'TERM': 'vt100', 'SHELL': '/bin/bash', 'LC_MESSAGES': 'C',
> 'PROMPT_COMMAND': 'echo -n ""', 'PATH':
> '/usr/bin:/bin:/usr/sbin:/sbin', 'HOME': '/builddir', 'HOSTNAME': 'mock'}
> DEBUG util.py:281:  There is no installed groups file.
> DEBUG util.py:281:  Maybe run: yum groups mark convert (see man yum)
> DEBUG util.py:281:  Error: Package:
> device-mapper-libs-1.02.85-4.fc21.1.1.1.i686 (build)
> DEBUG util.py:281: Requires: device-mapper =
> 1.02.85-4.fc21.1.1.1
> DEBUG util.py:281: Available:
> device-mapper-1.02.85-4.fc21.1.i686 (build)
> DEBUG util.py:281: device-mapper = 1.02.85-4.fc21.1
> DEBUG util.py:281:   You could try using --skip-broken to work around the
> problem
> DEBUG util.py:281:   You could try running: rpm -Va --nofiles --nodigest
> DEBUG util.py:371:  Child return code was: 1
>
> Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=7022888

I suggest giving koji and hour or so to settle out as there will be a
bit of a churn as it sorts out the repos with the mass package tagging
into f-21.

Peter
-- 
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 21 Mass rebuild update

[punto...@libero.it]

Il 08/06/2014 20:20, punto...@libero.it ha scritto:

Il 08/06/2014 19:50, Dennis Gilmore ha scritto:

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Hi All,

I am in the process of tagging the mass rebuild into f21 it will land
in the next rawhide which due to the size will take some time to
compose, and sync out to the mirrors

The tagging script tells me it is "Checking 13923 builds..." there is a
very large number of failures[1]. There seems to be a very large number
of java and ruby failures. so people interested in those stacks please
get onto them and fix them quickly

Regards,
Dennis

[1] http://ausil.fedorapeople.org/f21-failures.html

On Sat, 7 Jun 2014 08:51:06 -0500
Dennis Gilmore  wrote:

hi
thanks for your work!

now i have some problems for rebuild my packages

DEBUG util.py:331:  Executing command: ['/usr/bin/yum', 
'--installroot', '/var/lib/mock/f21-build-2154600-393050/root/', 
'groupinstall', 'srpm-build', '--setopt=tsflags=nocontexts'] with env 
{'LANG': 'en_US.UTF-8', 'TERM': 'vt100', 'SHELL': '/bin/bash', 
'LC_MESSAGES': 'C', 'PROMPT_COMMAND': 'echo -n ""', 
'PATH': '/usr/bin:/bin:/usr/sbin:/sbin', 'HOME': '/builddir', 
'HOSTNAME': 'mock'}

DEBUG util.py:281:  There is no installed groups file.
DEBUG util.py:281:  Maybe run: yum groups mark convert (see man yum)
DEBUG util.py:281:  Error: Package: 
device-mapper-libs-1.02.85-4.fc21.1.1.1.i686 (build)
DEBUG util.py:281: Requires: device-mapper = 
1.02.85-4.fc21.1.1.1
DEBUG util.py:281: Available: 
device-mapper-1.02.85-4.fc21.1.i686 (build)

DEBUG util.py:281: device-mapper = 1.02.85-4.fc21.1
DEBUG util.py:281:   You could try using --skip-broken to work around 
the problem

DEBUG util.py:281:   You could try running: rpm -Va --nofiles --nodigest
DEBUG util.py:371:  Child return code was: 1

Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=7022888

regards
gil

also on arm builder
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=7022890

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Hi all,

We merged in the side tags on May 27, and on June 6 kicked off the
mass rebuild. we are currently about 1/3rd of the way through.

You can see the current list of failures[1] and list to be built[2].
Both lists are updated every 5 minutes. at the end of the initial run
though we will file bugs for all FTBFS. Please be sure to get on top
of FTBFS quickly as they need to be done before the Alpha Change
deadline of 2014-07-22.

Dennis

[1] http://ausil.fedorapeople.org/f21-failures.html
[2] http://ausil.fedorapeople.org/f21-need-rebuild.html

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux)

iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJTlKKCAAoJEH7ltONmPFDRTTQP/i4LYQRFeidi0Rr4zsU5Dy9A
s7AOJIFlrSFjbVvl7XzQX4yi8LsztsYohiz4sGKw29SeGwymEdPQYZ9n0Rsjfg+F
OmyZ98CKf1FPsfDLD0tojfLO59qmeGqUNWred4Ov8dcJqUb0il1A4gEQeivrVNIO
6wHmVxsEYACpEs2nrNqLZcRv22j6LNBa2kBRqrF1tYPpAnszmUiSuJJTe91yy/a1
nLONrLCp5ZG8Xw/o+kHvtXMWNTnofbHYZTebxx2kLSfu4ZcxypfJdbJXrZGK0vKV
J1Wv3l56S+janjtTCqOXiijWAiSFOj5kLnQ6pmVhLym4KNMSoy5uaVuwXJ3wkwwP
kc2PTNqr8XUJlpZCyYzUuuiWv5wgZTxmAmc1UR3tKxbYSrkv/bsR1BmwNwcgM6N9
Efj6n4Lk+FJ9F5zRcKXpxyJamKyeaApr1t1u3JunbKGpo7iwgCT4J+RwUif0XFdc
Oeh93heGsSQfcbko3gVVd2e9rsr6nhiRKc1C1sMWJvZnD+a6TZeaoyQW+RxPUX0L
VbppEZHkWLMCzZ+5ADUXsF17PFnhLfZBpECK0aHpvYHhoiRjFLTwxSaK7xksU1wR
ENQioVUzfW8UCYd1VuquPOQfTVz9AwbAPGbclqzc139aU4B4TVYlo2xS+FUHWIrE
vxZ+w8ao4UapyOz626QT
=bMTV
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
___
devel-announce mailing list
devel-annou...@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel-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: Fedora 21 Mass rebuild update

[punto...@libero.it]

Il 08/06/2014 19:50, Dennis Gilmore ha scritto:

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Hi All,

I am in the process of tagging the mass rebuild into f21 it will land
in the next rawhide which due to the size will take some time to
compose, and sync out to the mirrors

The tagging script tells me it is "Checking 13923 builds..." there is a
very large number of failures[1]. There seems to be a very large number
of java and ruby failures. so people interested in those stacks please
get onto them and fix them quickly

Regards,
Dennis

[1] http://ausil.fedorapeople.org/f21-failures.html

On Sat, 7 Jun 2014 08:51:06 -0500
Dennis Gilmore  wrote:

hi
thanks for your work!

now i have some problems for rebuild my packages

DEBUG util.py:331:  Executing command: ['/usr/bin/yum', '--installroot', 
'/var/lib/mock/f21-build-2154600-393050/root/', 'groupinstall', 'srpm-build', 
'--setopt=tsflags=nocontexts'] with env {'LANG': 'en_US.UTF-8', 'TERM': 'vt100', 'SHELL': 
'/bin/bash', 'LC_MESSAGES': 'C', 'PROMPT_COMMAND': 'echo -n ""', 
'PATH': '/usr/bin:/bin:/usr/sbin:/sbin', 'HOME': '/builddir', 'HOSTNAME': 'mock'}
DEBUG util.py:281:  There is no installed groups file.
DEBUG util.py:281:  Maybe run: yum groups mark convert (see man yum)
DEBUG util.py:281:  Error: Package: 
device-mapper-libs-1.02.85-4.fc21.1.1.1.i686 (build)
DEBUG util.py:281: Requires: device-mapper = 1.02.85-4.fc21.1.1.1
DEBUG util.py:281: Available: device-mapper-1.02.85-4.fc21.1.i686 
(build)
DEBUG util.py:281: device-mapper = 1.02.85-4.fc21.1
DEBUG util.py:281:   You could try using --skip-broken to work around the 
problem
DEBUG util.py:281:   You could try running: rpm -Va --nofiles --nodigest
DEBUG util.py:371:  Child return code was: 1

Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=7022888

regards
gil

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Hi all,

We merged in the side tags on May 27, and on June 6 kicked off the
mass rebuild. we are currently about 1/3rd of the way through.

You can see the current list of failures[1] and list to be built[2].
Both lists are updated every 5 minutes. at the end of the initial run
though we will file bugs for all FTBFS. Please be sure to get on top
of FTBFS quickly as they need to be done before the Alpha Change
deadline of 2014-07-22.

Dennis

[1] http://ausil.fedorapeople.org/f21-failures.html
[2] http://ausil.fedorapeople.org/f21-need-rebuild.html

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux)

iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJTlKKCAAoJEH7ltONmPFDRTTQP/i4LYQRFeidi0Rr4zsU5Dy9A
s7AOJIFlrSFjbVvl7XzQX4yi8LsztsYohiz4sGKw29SeGwymEdPQYZ9n0Rsjfg+F
OmyZ98CKf1FPsfDLD0tojfLO59qmeGqUNWred4Ov8dcJqUb0il1A4gEQeivrVNIO
6wHmVxsEYACpEs2nrNqLZcRv22j6LNBa2kBRqrF1tYPpAnszmUiSuJJTe91yy/a1
nLONrLCp5ZG8Xw/o+kHvtXMWNTnofbHYZTebxx2kLSfu4ZcxypfJdbJXrZGK0vKV
J1Wv3l56S+janjtTCqOXiijWAiSFOj5kLnQ6pmVhLym4KNMSoy5uaVuwXJ3wkwwP
kc2PTNqr8XUJlpZCyYzUuuiWv5wgZTxmAmc1UR3tKxbYSrkv/bsR1BmwNwcgM6N9
Efj6n4Lk+FJ9F5zRcKXpxyJamKyeaApr1t1u3JunbKGpo7iwgCT4J+RwUif0XFdc
Oeh93heGsSQfcbko3gVVd2e9rsr6nhiRKc1C1sMWJvZnD+a6TZeaoyQW+RxPUX0L
VbppEZHkWLMCzZ+5ADUXsF17PFnhLfZBpECK0aHpvYHhoiRjFLTwxSaK7xksU1wR
ENQioVUzfW8UCYd1VuquPOQfTVz9AwbAPGbclqzc139aU4B4TVYlo2xS+FUHWIrE
vxZ+w8ao4UapyOz626QT
=bMTV
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
___
devel-announce mailing list
devel-annou...@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel-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: Fedora 21 Mass rebuild update

[Dennis Gilmore]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Hi All,

I am in the process of tagging the mass rebuild into f21 it will land
in the next rawhide which due to the size will take some time to
compose, and sync out to the mirrors

The tagging script tells me it is "Checking 13923 builds..." there is a
very large number of failures[1]. There seems to be a very large number
of java and ruby failures. so people interested in those stacks please
get onto them and fix them quickly

Regards,
Dennis

[1] http://ausil.fedorapeople.org/f21-failures.html

On Sat, 7 Jun 2014 08:51:06 -0500
Dennis Gilmore  wrote:

> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> We merged in the side tags on May 27, and on June 6 kicked off the
> mass rebuild. we are currently about 1/3rd of the way through.
> 
> You can see the current list of failures[1] and list to be built[2].
> Both lists are updated every 5 minutes. at the end of the initial run
> though we will file bugs for all FTBFS. Please be sure to get on top
> of FTBFS quickly as they need to be done before the Alpha Change
> deadline of 2014-07-22.
> 
> Dennis
> 
> [1] http://ausil.fedorapeople.org/f21-failures.html
> [2] http://ausil.fedorapeople.org/f21-need-rebuild.html
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux)
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=bMTV
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
___
devel-announce mailing list
devel-annou...@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel-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: Another bug on OpenSSL

[Paul Wouters]

On Sun, 8 Jun 2014, Tomasz Torcz wrote:


On Sun, Jun 08, 2014 at 12:21:08PM -0400, Paul wrote:

That bug was not found by the rampaging libressl people either.

Perhaps moving from OpenSSL to NSS would be better if you are that worried 
about OpenSSL bugs


 We've tried that: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/FedoraCryptoConsolidation


It's more a matter of upstream I guess.

Paul
--
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: COPR can't download SRPMs?

[Matěj Cepl]

On 2014-06-08, 13:41 GMT, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
> I have the same problem for quite a while already:
> http://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/pingou/subsurface/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/build-17727.log

Mee too

http://copr.fedoraproject.org/coprs/mcepl/xiphos-3.2.1/

Matěj

-- 
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: Another bug on OpenSSL

[Tomasz Torcz]

On Sun, Jun 08, 2014 at 12:21:08PM -0400, Paul wrote:
> That bug was not found by the rampaging libressl people either.
> 
> Perhaps moving from OpenSSL to NSS would be better if you are that worried 
> about OpenSSL bugs 

  We've tried that: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/FedoraCryptoConsolidation

-- 
Tomasz Torcz   ,,(...) today's high-end is tomorrow's embedded processor.''
xmpp: zdzich...@chrome.pl  -- Mitchell Blank on LKML

-- 
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: Another bug on OpenSSL

[Paul]

That bug was not found by the rampaging libressl people either.

Perhaps moving from OpenSSL to NSS would be better if you are that worried 
about OpenSSL bugs 

Sent from my iPhone

> On Jun 8, 2014, at 10:21, Álvaro Castillo  wrote:
> 
> Dear mailing list,
> 
> Few days was built an patch to solve an another vulnerability into
> OpenSSL(http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/06/05/new-bug-found-in-widely-used-openssl-encryption/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0).
> Some sources talks about that's bug was discovered a long time ago but
> does not fixed.
> 
> However, OpenBSD was created a fork called LibreSSL try to solve this
> issues. Should Fedora to move LibreSSL (http://www.libressl.org/)? Or
> still use OpenSSL and wait what's bug could be found today, or
> tomorrow, or few months to go similar Adobe Flash bugs?
> -- 
> devel mailing list
> devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
> Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: [HEADS UP] ogre 1.9.0 building in rawhide

[Hans de Goede]

Hi,

On 06/08/2014 03:01 PM, Igor Gnatenko wrote:
> Hi Michael,
> On Sun, Jun 8, 2014 at 1:06 PM, Michael Schwendt  wrote:
>> On Sun, 8 Jun 2014 01:15:51 +0400, Igor Gnatenko wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I just updated ogre to 1.9.0 in rawhide[0].
>>>
>>> There was so much changes in spec file, patches.
>>> * dropped devel-doc, because couldn't find docs in tarballs (mercurial'ed)
>>
>> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Renaming.2FReplacing_Existing_Packages
> fxd[0]
>>
>>> * new subpackages:
>>> ** overlay - http://www.ogre3d.org/tikiwiki/tiki-index.php?page=-overlay
>>> ** volume - 
>>> http://www.ogre3d.org/tikiwiki/tiki-index.php?page=VolumeComponent
>>
>> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Requiring_Base_Package
> fxd[0]
>>
>>> Let me know if there bugs!
> 
> 
> [0]http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/ogre.git/commit/?id=16060ffb9799dc8f9e4d40966e57b14696b1f78f

You got the obsoletes wrong %{name} expands to the base package name, not the 
sub-package you're using it in, so your obsoleting ogre-doc rather then 
ogre-devel-doc.

Regards,

Hans
-- 
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: Another bug on OpenSSL

[drago01]

On Sun, Jun 8, 2014 at 4:42 PM, Reindl Harald  wrote:
>
> Am 08.06.2014 16:21, schrieb Álvaro Castillo:
>> Few days was built an patch to solve an another vulnerability into
>> OpenSSL(http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/06/05/new-bug-found-in-widely-used-openssl-encryption/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0).
>> Some sources talks about that's bug was discovered a long time ago but
>> does not fixed.
>>
>> However, OpenBSD was created a fork called LibreSSL try to solve this
>> issues. Should Fedora to move LibreSSL (http://www.libressl.org/)? Or
>> still use OpenSSL and wait what's bug could be found today, or
>> tomorrow, or few months to go similar Adobe Flash bugs?
>
> you realized that LibreSSL *backported* the bugs you are
> talking about?
>
> *at the moment* it makes pretty no sense switch to a fork
> which is at the begin of the work and currently most likely
> has *much more bugs* simply because large changes in a
> foreign codebase

Well add to that that it currently is (Open)BSD only afaik.
-- 
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: Another bug on OpenSSL

[Matthew Miller]

On Sun, Jun 08, 2014 at 03:21:04PM +0100, Álvaro Castillo wrote:
> However, OpenBSD was created a fork called LibreSSL try to solve this
> issues. Should Fedora to move LibreSSL (http://www.libressl.org/)? Or
> still use OpenSSL and wait what's bug could be found today, or
> tomorrow, or few months to go similar Adobe Flash bugs?

Well, meanwhile, also spurred by Heartbleed, there is


I think it's too early to pick a winner here.

-- 
Matthew Miller

Fedora Project Leader
-- 
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: Another bug on OpenSSL

[Reindl Harald]

Am 08.06.2014 16:42, schrieb Reindl Harald:
> Am 08.06.2014 16:21, schrieb Álvaro Castillo:
>> Few days was built an patch to solve an another vulnerability into
>> OpenSSL(http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/06/05/new-bug-found-in-widely-used-openssl-encryption/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0).
>> Some sources talks about that's bug was discovered a long time ago but
>> does not fixed.
>>
>> However, OpenBSD was created a fork called LibreSSL try to solve this
>> issues. Should Fedora to move LibreSSL (http://www.libressl.org/)? Or
>> still use OpenSSL and wait what's bug could be found today, or
>> tomorrow, or few months to go similar Adobe Flash bugs?
> 
> you realized that LibreSSL *backported* the bugs you are
> talking about?

- backported the bug
+ backported the bugfixes

means there where found and fixed in OpenSSL and *after that* fixed in LibreSSL



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: Another bug on OpenSSL

[Reindl Harald]

Am 08.06.2014 16:21, schrieb Álvaro Castillo:
> Few days was built an patch to solve an another vulnerability into
> OpenSSL(http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/06/05/new-bug-found-in-widely-used-openssl-encryption/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0).
> Some sources talks about that's bug was discovered a long time ago but
> does not fixed.
> 
> However, OpenBSD was created a fork called LibreSSL try to solve this
> issues. Should Fedora to move LibreSSL (http://www.libressl.org/)? Or
> still use OpenSSL and wait what's bug could be found today, or
> tomorrow, or few months to go similar Adobe Flash bugs?

you realized that LibreSSL *backported* the bugs you are
talking about?

*at the moment* it makes pretty no sense switch to a fork
which is at the begin of the work and currently most likely
has *much more bugs* simply because large changes in a
foreign codebase

frankly - nobody knows about the future of LibreSSL and
OpenSSL, maybe they get merged later or only one of the
projects survives

what are you doing if OpenSSL backports all the changes
and LibreSSL dies in a few years? regret the whole migration
and start the game again?

in a short: if it comes to security avoid actions by reflex



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: Another bug on OpenSSL

[Jon Kent]

At present I have more trust in the OpenBSD guys than OpenSSL based upon
their previous work. So I'd prefer to move to LibreSSL once stable

Just my 2c worth.

Jon
On 8 Jun 2014 15:21, "Álvaro Castillo"  wrote:

> Dear mailing list,
>
> Few days was built an patch to solve an another vulnerability into
> OpenSSL(
> http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/06/05/new-bug-found-in-widely-used-openssl-encryption/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0
> ).
> Some sources talks about that's bug was discovered a long time ago but
> does not fixed.
>
> However, OpenBSD was created a fork called LibreSSL try to solve this
> issues. Should Fedora to move LibreSSL (http://www.libressl.org/)? Or
> still use OpenSSL and wait what's bug could be found today, or
> tomorrow, or few months to go similar Adobe Flash bugs?
> --
> devel mailing list
> devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
> Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Another bug on OpenSSL

[Álvaro Castillo]

Dear mailing list,

Few days was built an patch to solve an another vulnerability into
OpenSSL(http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/06/05/new-bug-found-in-widely-used-openssl-encryption/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0).
Some sources talks about that's bug was discovered a long time ago but
does not fixed.

However, OpenBSD was created a fork called LibreSSL try to solve this
issues. Should Fedora to move LibreSSL (http://www.libressl.org/)? Or
still use OpenSSL and wait what's bug could be found today, or
tomorrow, or few months to go similar Adobe Flash bugs?
-- 
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: COPR can't download SRPMs?

[Pierre-Yves Chibon]

On Sun, Jun 08, 2014 at 05:36:45PM +0400, Igor Gnatenko wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Sun, Jun 8, 2014 at 5:02 PM, Richard Shaw  wrote:
> > I thought maybe it was a problem with dropbox but I uploaded my srpms to
> > fedorapeople.org and builds are still failing to download...
> can you provide link?

I have the same problem for quite a while already:
http://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/pingou/subsurface/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/build-17727.log

Pierre
-- 
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: COPR can't download SRPMs?

[Igor Gnatenko]

Hi,

On Sun, Jun 8, 2014 at 5:02 PM, Richard Shaw  wrote:
> I thought maybe it was a problem with dropbox but I uploaded my srpms to
> fedorapeople.org and builds are still failing to download...
can you provide link?
> Thanks,
> Richard

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

COPR can't download SRPMs?

[Richard Shaw]

I thought maybe it was a problem with dropbox but I uploaded my srpms to
fedorapeople.org and builds are still failing to download...

Thanks,
Richard
-- 
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: [HEADS UP] ogre 1.9.0 building in rawhide

[Igor Gnatenko]

Hi Michael,
On Sun, Jun 8, 2014 at 1:06 PM, Michael Schwendt  wrote:
> On Sun, 8 Jun 2014 01:15:51 +0400, Igor Gnatenko wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I just updated ogre to 1.9.0 in rawhide[0].
>>
>> There was so much changes in spec file, patches.
>> * dropped devel-doc, because couldn't find docs in tarballs (mercurial'ed)
>
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Renaming.2FReplacing_Existing_Packages
fxd[0]
>
>> * new subpackages:
>> ** overlay - http://www.ogre3d.org/tikiwiki/tiki-index.php?page=-overlay
>> ** volume - 
>> http://www.ogre3d.org/tikiwiki/tiki-index.php?page=VolumeComponent
>
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Requiring_Base_Package
fxd[0]
>
>> Let me know if there bugs!


[0]http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/ogre.git/commit/?id=16060ffb9799dc8f9e4d40966e57b14696b1f78f

-- 
-Igor Gnatenko
-- 
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: ROLLING FEDORA

[Reindl Harald]

Am 08.06.2014 12:53, schrieb مصعب الزعبي:
> There is a problem >>
> 
> Packages of rawhide not all stable !!!
> we need a non-limited repo with only stable packages

Fedora is no rolling release distribution
it was never and likely will never be



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: ROLLING FEDORA

[Rahul Sundaram]

Hi


On Sun, Jun 8, 2014 at 6:53 AM, مصعب الزعبي wrote:

> There is a problem >>
>
> Packages of rawhide not all stable !!!
> we need a non-limited repo with only stable packages .
>

We cannot achieve stability without user feedback.   If you like a rolling
release model, feel free to participate.

Rahul
-- 
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: ROLLING FEDORA

[مصعب الزعبي]

There is a problem >> 

Packages of rawhide not all stable !!!
we need a non-limited repo with only stable packages .


Mosaab
  -- 
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: [HEADS UP] ogre 1.9.0 building in rawhide

[Michael Schwendt]

On Sun, 8 Jun 2014 01:15:51 +0400, Igor Gnatenko wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> I just updated ogre to 1.9.0 in rawhide[0].
> 
> There was so much changes in spec file, patches.
> * dropped devel-doc, because couldn't find docs in tarballs (mercurial'ed)

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Renaming.2FReplacing_Existing_Packages

> * new subpackages:
> ** overlay - http://www.ogre3d.org/tikiwiki/tiki-index.php?page=-overlay
> ** volume - http://www.ogre3d.org/tikiwiki/tiki-index.php?page=VolumeComponent

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Requiring_Base_Package
 
> Let me know if there bugs!
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct