Re: rawhide report: 20090826 changes
On Wed, 2009-08-26 at 15:58 +0100, Peter Robinson wrote: > > Broken deps for i386 > > -- > >anerley-0.0.20-3.fc12.i686 requires libmissioncontrol-client.so.0 > >anerley-devel-0.0.20-3.fc12.i686 requires > > pkgconfig(libmissioncontrol) > >anjal-0.1.0-0.7.20090821git5ac8bfe.fc12.i686 requires > > libmissioncontrol-client.so.0 > >empathy-2.27.5-3.fc12.i686 requires libmissioncontrol-client.so.0 > >empathy-devel-2.27.5-3.fc12.i686 requires > > pkgconfig(libmissioncontrol) > >empathy-libs-2.27.5-3.fc12.i686 requires > > libmissioncontrol-client.so.0 > >empathy-python-2.27.5-3.fc12.i686 requires > > libmissioncontrol-client.so.0 > >nautilus-sendto-1.1.6-2.fc12.i686 requires > > libmissioncontrol-client.so.0 > > I don't remember the bump nitrification email for this going to fedora-devel. My fault. I wasn't aware of anything using mission-control other than empathy & nautilus-sendto which I was working on updating. Sorry. Later, /B -- Brian Pepple identi.ca: http://identi.ca/bpepple gpg --keyserver pgp.mit.edu --recv-keys 810CC15E BD5E 6F9E 8688 E668 8F5B CBDE 326A E936 810C C15E signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Champlain
On Sat, 2009-07-11 at 18:25 +0530, Debarshi Ray wrote: > > So no one is affected by this change. On the other hand, 0.2.x is old > and 0.3.x is where the fun is. So atleast some developers would > benefit from it and libchamplain-0.3 would also get some testing > leading to a better 0.4.x. Since the are some consumers that could make use of it that I wasn't aware of, it's probably worth it (assuming we also update Rawhide, so we don't have NVR issues). Later, /B -- Brian Pepple https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Bpepple gpg --keyserver pgp.mit.edu --recv-keys 810CC15E BD5E 6F9E 8688 E668 8F5B CBDE 326A E936 810C C15E signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Champlain
On Sat, 2009-07-11 at 16:36 +0530, Debarshi Ray wrote: > I am going to update libchamplain from 0.2.9 to 0.3.3 in Fedora 11. > This involves a change in the soname, but since no other package > depends on it I hope it would not be a problem. On the plus side, the > GtkChamplainEmbed widget which was earlier separately released has > been merged into the libchamplain tarball and we can put in a > subpackage. Not to mention that potential Champlain users and > developers will find this helpful. > > What do you think? I've been working on updating libchamplain to 0.3.3 in Rawhide, but until it gets ported to the clutter-0.9 api (or we do a clutter-0.8 compat) it's a no go for now. Regarding pushing this to F11, I really don't think we should, since the only real consumer of libchamplain is Empathy and we won't be pushing a version of it with libchamplain support to F11. Later, /B -- Brian Pepple https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Bpepple gpg --keyserver pgp.mit.edu --recv-keys 810CC15E BD5E 6F9E 8688 E668 8F5B CBDE 326A E936 810C C15E signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Feature proposal: Extended Life Cycle Support
On Sun, 2009-07-05 at 00:22 +0200, Ralf Ertzinger wrote: > On Sat, 04 Jul 2009 23:58:52 +0200, Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote > > I wanted to draw your attention to a feature I've proposed for Fedora > > 12, mysteriously called Extended Life Cycle. > > Is it that time of the year again? Geez, I was going to say thing. Didn't we have this discussion about 8 months ago? Later, /B -- Brian Pepple identi.ca: http://identi.ca/bpepple gpg --keyserver pgp.mit.edu --recv-keys 810CC15E BD5E 6F9E 8688 E668 8F5B CBDE 326A E936 810C C15E signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: an update to automake-1.11?
On Tue, 2009-06-30 at 14:05 -0400, Owen Taylor wrote: > But is this the type of upgrade that makes sense in general? It seems to > me that we should be very conservative in upgrading build tools, > especially in "maintenance mode" distributions like F9 and F10. Totally agree with you. We shouldn't be pushing updates to build tools in our stable releases unless there is a really strong reason for it. Later, /B -- Brian Pepple identi.ca: http://identi.ca/bpepple gpg --keyserver pgp.mit.edu --recv-keys 810CC15E BD5E 6F9E 8688 E668 8F5B CBDE 326A E936 810C C15E signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: which gstreamer versions in official fc5?
On Thu, 2006-03-16 at 10:47 -0500, Ray Strode wrote: > Hi, > > On Thu, 2006-03-16 at 09:44 -0500, Ray Strode wrote: > > > I believe the plan is to upgrade in FC5 updates, within a few days of > > > the FC5 release. > > > > > > > Do you know if there is any plan to update libnotify to 0.3.2 for FC5? > > I've got a couple of packages (gossip, xchat-gnome) that don't work with > > 0.3.0 due to the api change. > It was considered, but it requires the new notification daemon, and the > new notification daemon requires libsexy which we don't ship. At the > time, it was a bit late in the development cycle to add a new package to > the distribution. > > If you file a bug though, maybe we can do something. For instance, make > libsexy configure time optional or something. Hard to say at this > point. Ray, thanks for the update. I glanced at the latest notification daemon tarball, and it looks fairly straight forward to make the libsexy dependency option. The only use of libsexy is in the theme.c file, and it involves sexy-url-label. If I've got some time this weekend, I'll work on a patch to make libsexy option. /B -- Brian Pepple gpg --keyserver pgp.mit.edu --recv-keys 810CC15E BD5E 6F9E 8688 E668 8F5B CBDE 326A E936 810C C15E signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: which gstreamer versions in official fc5?
On Thu, 2006-03-16 at 09:44 -0500, Ray Strode wrote: > I believe the plan is to upgrade in FC5 updates, within a few days of > the FC5 release. > Do you know if there is any plan to update libnotify to 0.3.2 for FC5? I've got a couple of packages (gossip, xchat-gnome) that don't work with 0.3.0 due to the api change. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=179960 /B -- Brian Pepple gpg --keyserver pgp.mit.edu --recv-keys 810CC15E BD5E 6F9E 8688 E668 8F5B CBDE 326A E936 810C C15E signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Fedora Core 5 Status
On Wed, 2006-03-15 at 09:21 -0800, Florin Andrei wrote: > On Fri, 2006-03-10 at 10:53 -0500, Jeremy Katz wrote: > > Due to circumstances outside of our control, we're going to be unable to > > keep to the scheduled date of March 15th for the release of FC5 and > > instead are going to have to make the release date Monday, March 20th. > > While unfortunate in some ways, this gives us the opportunity to pull in > > the final GNOME 2.14 tarballs which should be available on Monday > > assuming the changes are suitably minor. > > Cool. > > Will Evolution-2.6.0 be included as well? > It's already in Rawhide. /B -- Brian Pepple gpg --keyserver pgp.mit.edu --recv-keys 810CC15E BD5E 6F9E 8688 E668 8F5B CBDE 326A E936 810C C15E signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Gnomebaker, missing dependency - FC5T3
On Fri, 2006-03-03 at 15:31 +0100, Igor Jagec wrote: > [r...@localhost ~]# yum install gnomebaker > Loading "installonlyn" plugin > Setting up Install Process > Setting up repositories > development [1/2] > extras-development [2/2] > Reading repository metadata in from local files > Parsing package install arguments > Resolving Dependencies > --> Populating transaction set with selected packages. Please wait. > ---> Package gnomebaker.i386 0:0.5.1-2.fc5 set to be updated > --> Running transaction check > --> Processing Dependency: libgstreamer-0.8.so.1 for package: gnomebaker > --> Finished Dependency Resolution > Error: Missing Dependency: libgstreamer-0.8.so.1 is needed by package > gnomebaker This is a known problem. gstreamer08 was removed from Core a little while ago, and until it's imported into FE this dependency isn't available. Right now the only thing holding up getting this into FE, is a problem with rpath for gstreamer08. You can follow the progress for this, or better yet help solve it here: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=181824 /B -- Brian Pepple gpg --keyserver pgp.mit.edu --recv-keys 810CC15E BD5E 6F9E 8688 E668 8F5B CBDE 326A E936 810C C15E signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
