Re: RPM installation order
Jerry James wrote, at 12/01/2009 02:29 AM +9:00:
I'm looking into a gcl bug (I maintain gcl):
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=541050.
The problem appears to be that the order of RPM installation is
unpredictable. There is a subpackage, gcl-selinux, which provides
policy files for use by other packages that build executables with
gcl. That package installs a policy, gcl.pp, and then does this in
%post:
/usr/sbin/semodule -i %{_datadir}/selinux/packages/gcl/gcl.pp || :
/sbin/fixfiles -R gcl restore || :
This works great when the main gcl package is installed first,
followed by the gcl-selinux package. However, sometimes RPM installs
them in the other order.
Umm, I checked F-12 gcl.spec and there is no such Requires relation
between two packages (i.e. -selinux subpackage does not have
Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} or so), so it is natural
that the order is inpredictable.
Regards,
Mamoru
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: RPM installation order
Mamoru Tasaka wrote, at 12/01/2009 02:51 AM +9:00:
Jerry James wrote, at 12/01/2009 02:29 AM +9:00:
I'm looking into a gcl bug (I maintain gcl):
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=541050.
The problem appears to be that the order of RPM installation is
unpredictable. There is a subpackage, gcl-selinux, which provides
policy files for use by other packages that build executables with
gcl. That package installs a policy, gcl.pp, and then does this in
%post:
/usr/sbin/semodule -i %{_datadir}/selinux/packages/gcl/gcl.pp || :
/sbin/fixfiles -R gcl restore || :
This works great when the main gcl package is installed first,
followed by the gcl-selinux package. However, sometimes RPM installs
them in the other order.
Umm, I checked F-12 gcl.spec and there is no such Requires relation
between two packages (i.e. -selinux subpackage does not have
Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} or so), so it is natural
that the order is inpredictable.
Ah, rather gcl package has Requires: gcl-selinux = %{version}-%{release},
so currently I am not sure what you want.
Mamoru
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: rpms/gpm/devel gpm.spec,1.78,1.79
Nikola Pajkovsky wrote, at 11/19/2009 10:34 PM +9:00:
Author: npajkovs
Update of /cvs/extras/rpms/gpm/devel
In directory cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com:/tmp/cvs-serv16231
Modified Files:
gpm.spec
Log Message:
local build need this but koji not. wierd
Index: gpm.spec
===
RCS file: /cvs/extras/rpms/gpm/devel/gpm.spec,v
retrieving revision 1.78
retrieving revision 1.79
diff -u -p -r1.78 -r1.79
--- gpm.spec19 Nov 2009 12:36:06 - 1.78
+++ gpm.spec19 Nov 2009 13:34:50 - 1.79
@@ -143,7 +143,6 @@ fi
%attr(0755,root,root) %{_sysconfdir}/rc.d/init.d/gpm
%{_sbindir}/*
%{_bindir}/*
-%{_datadir}/emacs/site-lisp/*
%{_mandir}/man?/*
%endif
I guess you have emacs installed on your local system. Actually
with adding BR: emacs /usr/share/emacs/site-lisp/t-mouse.el
is installed (and build fails)
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1816519
Regards,
Mamoru
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: rpm package conflict
Michael Schwendt wrote, at 11/13/2009 08:23 PM +9:00:
On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 02:42:18 -0500, James wrote:
All,
In the latest set of system updates, I saw this package conflict:
[r...@pc32 ~]# yum update
Loaded plugins: refresh-packagekit
Setting up Update Process
Resolving Dependencies
-- Running transaction check
--- Package gstreamer-plugins-base.i586 0:0.10.25-2.fc11 set to be
updated
-- Processing Conflict: gstreamer-plugins-base-0.10.25-2.fc11.i586
conflicts gstreamer-plugins-good 0.10.16-3
Notice the maximum release it prints out:
gstreamer-plugins-good lower than 0.10.16-3
The corresponding update ticket prints a higher version for the package
that would not conflict:
gstreamer-plugins-good 0.10.16-4.fc11(which is higher than 0.10.16-3)
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F11/FEDORA-2009-10937
But that package, which should have appeared in the repo at the same
time as the new gstreamer-plugins-base, is not found on the master
download server yet. As why only gstreamer-plugins-base has been made
available already, only somebody who controls the push-process can tell.
Ah...
[tasa...@localhost ~]$ koji latest-pkg dist-f11-updates gstreamer-plugins-good
Build Tag Built by
gstreamer-plugins-good-0.10.16-2.fc11 dist-f11-updates hadess
[tasa...@localhost ~]$ koji list-tag-history
--build=gstreamer-plugins-good-0.10.16-4.fc11
Tue Oct 20 23:54:42 2009: Tagged gstreamer-plugins-good-0.10.16-4.fc11 with
dist-f11-updates-candidate
Tue Oct 27 04:38:28 2009: Untagged gstreamer-plugins-good-0.10.16-4.fc11 from
dist-f11-updates-candidate
Tue Oct 27 04:38:28 2009: Tagged gstreamer-plugins-good-0.10.16-4.fc11 with
dist-f11-updates-testing
Tue Oct 27 19:52:27 2009: Untagged gstreamer-plugins-good-0.10.16-4.fc11 from
dist-f11-updates-testing
Tue Oct 27 19:52:27 2009: Tagged gstreamer-plugins-good-0.10.16-4.fc11 with
dist-f11-updates-candidate
Thu Oct 29 04:28:19 2009: Untagged gstreamer-plugins-good-0.10.16-4.fc11 from
dist-f11-updates-candidate
Thu Oct 29 04:28:19 2009: Tagged gstreamer-plugins-good-0.10.16-4.fc11 with
dist-f11-updates-testing
Tue Nov 3 15:59:09 2009: Untagged gstreamer-plugins-good-0.10.16-4.fc11 from
dist-f11-updates-testing
Tue Nov 3 15:59:09 2009: Tagged gstreamer-plugins-good-0.10.16-4.fc11 with
dist-f11-updates-candidate
Tue Nov 3 21:23:28 2009: Untagged gstreamer-plugins-good-0.10.16-4.fc11 from
dist-f11-updates-candidate
Tue Nov 3 21:23:28 2009: Tagged gstreamer-plugins-good-0.10.16-4.fc11 with
dist-f11-updates-testing
Thu Nov 12 23:55:06 2009: Untagged gstreamer-plugins-good-0.10.16-4.fc11 from
dist-f11-updates-testing
Thu Nov 12 23:55:06 2009: Tagged gstreamer-plugins-good-0.10.16-4.fc11 with
dist-f11-updates [still active]
[tasa...@localhost ~]$ koji list-tag-history
--build=gstreamer-plugins-good-0.10.16-2.fc11
Sat Oct 17 00:00:51 2009: Tagged gstreamer-plugins-good-0.10.16-2.fc11 with
dist-f11-updates-candidate
Tue Oct 20 22:48:16 2009: Untagged gstreamer-plugins-good-0.10.16-2.fc11 from
dist-f11-updates-candidate
Tue Oct 20 22:48:16 2009: Tagged gstreamer-plugins-good-0.10.16-2.fc11 with
dist-f11-updates-testing
Thu Nov 12 23:56:38 2009: Untagged gstreamer-plugins-good-0.10.16-2.fc11 from
dist-f11-updates-testing
Thu Nov 12 23:56:38 2009: Tagged gstreamer-plugins-good-0.10.16-2.fc11 with
dist-f11-updates [still active]
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F11/FEDORA-2009-10937
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F11/FEDORA-2009-10647
So the latest F11updates gstreamer-plugins-good is actually 0.10.16-2.fc11, not
0.10.16-4.fc11. This needs rel-eng commitment.
Regards,
Mamoru
--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Re: rpm package conflict
Mamoru Tasaka wrote, at 11/13/2009 08:50 PM +9:00:
Michael Schwendt wrote, at 11/13/2009 08:23 PM +9:00:
On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 02:42:18 -0500, James wrote:
All,
In the latest set of system updates, I saw this package conflict:
[r...@pc32 ~]# yum update
Loaded plugins: refresh-packagekit
Setting up Update Process
Resolving Dependencies
-- Running transaction check
--- Package gstreamer-plugins-base.i586 0:0.10.25-2.fc11 set to be
updated
-- Processing Conflict: gstreamer-plugins-base-0.10.25-2.fc11.i586
conflicts gstreamer-plugins-good 0.10.16-3
Notice the maximum release it prints out:
gstreamer-plugins-good lower than 0.10.16-3
The corresponding update ticket prints a higher version for the package
that would not conflict:
gstreamer-plugins-good 0.10.16-4.fc11(which is higher than
0.10.16-3)
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F11/FEDORA-2009-10937
But that package, which should have appeared in the repo at the same
time as the new gstreamer-plugins-base, is not found on the master
download server yet. As why only gstreamer-plugins-base has been made
available already, only somebody who controls the push-process can tell.
Ah...
[tasa...@localhost ~]$ koji latest-pkg dist-f11-updates
gstreamer-plugins-good
Build Tag Built by
gstreamer-plugins-good-0.10.16-2.fc11 dist-f11-updates hadess
[tasa...@localhost ~]$ koji list-tag-history
--build=gstreamer-plugins-good-0.10.16-4.fc11
Tue Oct 20 23:54:42 2009: Tagged gstreamer-plugins-good-0.10.16-4.fc11
with dist-f11-updates-candidate
Tue Oct 27 04:38:28 2009: Untagged gstreamer-plugins-good-0.10.16-4.fc11
from dist-f11-updates-candidate
Tue Oct 27 04:38:28 2009: Tagged gstreamer-plugins-good-0.10.16-4.fc11
with dist-f11-updates-testing
Tue Oct 27 19:52:27 2009: Untagged gstreamer-plugins-good-0.10.16-4.fc11
from dist-f11-updates-testing
Tue Oct 27 19:52:27 2009: Tagged gstreamer-plugins-good-0.10.16-4.fc11
with dist-f11-updates-candidate
Thu Oct 29 04:28:19 2009: Untagged gstreamer-plugins-good-0.10.16-4.fc11
from dist-f11-updates-candidate
Thu Oct 29 04:28:19 2009: Tagged gstreamer-plugins-good-0.10.16-4.fc11
with dist-f11-updates-testing
Tue Nov 3 15:59:09 2009: Untagged gstreamer-plugins-good-0.10.16-4.fc11
from dist-f11-updates-testing
Tue Nov 3 15:59:09 2009: Tagged gstreamer-plugins-good-0.10.16-4.fc11
with dist-f11-updates-candidate
Tue Nov 3 21:23:28 2009: Untagged gstreamer-plugins-good-0.10.16-4.fc11
from dist-f11-updates-candidate
Tue Nov 3 21:23:28 2009: Tagged gstreamer-plugins-good-0.10.16-4.fc11
with dist-f11-updates-testing
Thu Nov 12 23:55:06 2009: Untagged gstreamer-plugins-good-0.10.16-4.fc11
from dist-f11-updates-testing
Thu Nov 12 23:55:06 2009: Tagged gstreamer-plugins-good-0.10.16-4.fc11
with dist-f11-updates [still active]
[tasa...@localhost ~]$ koji list-tag-history
--build=gstreamer-plugins-good-0.10.16-2.fc11
Sat Oct 17 00:00:51 2009: Tagged gstreamer-plugins-good-0.10.16-2.fc11
with dist-f11-updates-candidate
Tue Oct 20 22:48:16 2009: Untagged gstreamer-plugins-good-0.10.16-2.fc11
from dist-f11-updates-candidate
Tue Oct 20 22:48:16 2009: Tagged gstreamer-plugins-good-0.10.16-2.fc11
with dist-f11-updates-testing
Thu Nov 12 23:56:38 2009: Untagged gstreamer-plugins-good-0.10.16-2.fc11
from dist-f11-updates-testing
Thu Nov 12 23:56:38 2009: Tagged gstreamer-plugins-good-0.10.16-2.fc11
with dist-f11-updates [still active]
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F11/FEDORA-2009-10937
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F11/FEDORA-2009-10647
So the latest F11updates gstreamer-plugins-good is actually
0.10.16-2.fc11, not 0.10.16-4.fc11. This needs rel-eng commitment.
Regards,
Mamoru
Requested:
https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/3154
--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Re: rpms/libXres/devel .cvsignore, 1.9, 1.10 libXres.spec, 1.26, 1.27 sources, 1.10, 1.11
Adam Jackson wrote, at 10/14/2009 03:20 AM +9:00: On Tue, 2009-10-13 at 10:32 -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: If all Fedora releases have the autoprovides but EL-5 is still affected, the draft can be as simple as: rpm detects pkgconfig dependencies in all Fedora releases, please move the pkgconfig requires from [LINK] to the EPEL specific guidelines. Done: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/PkgconfigAutoRequires AFAICT this became automagic in F-10, but I can't find any overt history of that in redhat-rpm-macros. - ajax Actually in the change of rpm (not redhat-rpm-config) and from F-11. Note that F-10 rpm also generated pkgconfig related Provides lists, but not Requires list (i.e. adding Requires: pkgconfig and some pkgconfig related Requires list is still needed for F-10 packages, although F-10 is going to be EOL). The example is the following packages. F-11: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/rpminfo?rpmID=1592955 F-10: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/rpminfo?rpmID=1592985 The explanation is: https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2008-November/msg02173.html Regards, Mamoru -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: libprojectM Packaging Problem
Jameson wrote, at 10/11/2009 06:37 AM +9:00: I'm having trouble getting the new version of libprojectM packaged, and hope someone can shed some light on this for me. Would you upload the srpm you are trying somewhere? When I enter the commands to build it manually, it builds fine, but when trying to package it, it comes out with commands like: snip Which fail due to ;-fPIC. Any ideas on why this is happening? It looks to me that it's a simple matter of getting rid of the ; in the command, but I have no idea why it's there using rpmbuild, but not when I build manually. Thanks, =-Jameson Regards, Mamoru -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Howto handle multilib conflict?
Michael Schwendt wrote, at 10/11/2009 01:09 AM +9:00: On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 17:32:40 +0200, Patrice wrote: On Sat, Oct 10, 2009 at 05:21:37PM +0200, Christoph Wickert wrote: Timestamp differences do NOT cause file conflicts. Indeed, obviously this has changed. Changes like this should be announced somewhere, What is the source of these rumours that file timestamp differences would cause conflicts? I guess these rumors came because sometimes some programs creating document files (mostly html files) or so embeded the timestamp of the date in those files and that actually caused multilib conflict (i.e. not the timestamp of the files but the embedded strings in those files). Regards, Mamoru -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Okular cannot open files with filenames with spaces
Paul Smith wrote, at 10/04/2009 07:48 PM +9:00: Dear All, When trying to open a pdf file with a filename with spaces, Okular cannot open it. For instance, try to open the following pdf file: http://www.esferadoslivros.pt/pdfs/Contos%20de%20amor.pdf Okular did not exhibit this problem, say, one or two months ago. Any ideas? Thanks in advance, Paul This is a known issue. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=519008 Regards, Mamoru -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Re: Problems building kernel
Quentin Armitage wrote, at 10/02/2009 04:43 PM +9:00:
I'm trying to build an old(ish) kernel (2.6.29.1-46-fc11.i586) on an
up-to-date F-11 system, but I keep getting a build failure. I have
tracked it down to the following.
At the beginning of the %install stage, it executes
'[' /u/home/hsn/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/kernel-2.6.29.1-46.fc11.i386 '!=' /
']
rm -rf /u/home/hsn/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/kernel-2.6.29.1-46.fc11.i386
but there are already files in that directory that have been created
earlier in the build process and are needed for the install (see
extract of build log below).
I notice that when kernels are build in koji, this rm ... does not get
executed, but also, looking at other packages' build.log in koji (the
example I took was rpm itself), then the equivalent rm command is
executed.
I cannot see where the rm ... command comes from, or how t
This change (i.e. deleting %buildroot tree at the beginning of %install)
comes from the change in redhat-rpm-config
(see $ rpm -q --changelog redhat-rpm-config and the file
/usr/lib/rpm/redhat/macros )
Recent kernel.spec has the following lines at the top to prevent this
behavior.
---
# We have to override the new %%install behavior because, well... the kernel is
special.
%global __spec_install_pre %{___build_pre}
---
Regards,
Mamoru
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Fedora 12 Freeze at 0600~ 2009-09-30 UTC
Jesse Keating wrote, at 09/30/2009 01:57 AM +9:00: Just a reminder that the Fedora 12 freeze will be happening tonight at 0600 2009-09-30 UTC, just prior to the rawhide compose tonight. The rawhide for 20090930 will be built from frozen content. You do not need to send tag requests until after that. By the way although this time already came dist-f12 tree seems still unfrozen [1] and some builds after this freeze time are already included into dist-f12-build tree [2]. Does this mean that these packages (rebuilt after F12 beta freeze) are finally included in F12 final tree? [1] http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taginfo?tagID=85 [2] http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/builds?tagID=86order=-completion_timelatest=1 Mamoru -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Wanted: rpm for GraphicsMagick
Colin Paul Adams wrote, at 09/30/2009 10:26 PM +9:00: If I do: yum install GraphicsMagick it attempts to install 1.1.14, which is really ancient. I need 1.3.3 at the very least (I think stable is 1.3.7). Does anyone have an rpm available for this? There is a .src.rpm on the sourceforge site, but I can't install this (rpmbuild --rebuild fails with obscure error message - googling doesn't help). Fedora rawhide uses GraphicsMagick 1.3.7, so you may want to try rawhide's srpm. Mamoru -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Re: OT Enlightenment 16 = 17 opinions ??
William Case wrote, at 09/07/2009 02:13 PM +9:00: On Sun, 2009-09-06 at 18:59 -0400, William Case wrote: Hi; I have opened a new user account to try out Enlightenment desktop. I have been playing with E16 all afternoon and kind of like it. Before I really dive in though, I was wondering if it is worth downloading E17. It turns out enlightenment-0.16.999.050-3.fc11.x86_64 is the one I installed from the Fedora repo. The version numbers are so close I wonder if this means it is virtually the same as version 17. Actually Fedora's enlightenment is Enlightenment DR17. You can check this by: $ rpm -qi enlightenment Regards, Mamoru -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Re: Confusion with openal-soft
Michael Schwendt wrote, at 08/16/2009 09:29 PM +9:00: On Sun, 16 Aug 2009 14:04:14 +0200, LinuxDonald wrote: I have updated the packages for F-10 and F-11 with conflicts and without obseltues :) Explicit Conflicts need the approval of the Fedora Packaging Committee. This occurs only on F-10/11 and not on rawhide. Please see the discussion on bug 515109 for details. Regards, Mamoru -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Confusion with openal-soft
Michael Schwendt wrote, at 08/16/2009 11:47 PM +9:00:
On Sun, 16 Aug 2009 22:39:37 +0900, Mamoru wrote:
Michael Schwendt wrote, at 08/16/2009 09:29 PM +9:00:
On Sun, 16 Aug 2009 14:04:14 +0200, LinuxDonald wrote:
I have updated the packages for F-10 and F-11 with conflicts and without
obseltues :)
Explicit Conflicts need the approval of the Fedora Packaging Committee.
This occurs only on F-10/11 and not on rawhide.
Please see the discussion on bug 515109 for details.
First it is pointed out that parallel installable packages would be
preferred, then there is a jump to making them conflict. Why?
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Conflicts
To be clear, openal and openal-soft can be installable in parallel
(because of the same library with the different soversion),
however openal-devel and openal-soft-devel is actually in conflict.
openal-soft is intended to replace openal (bug 501132), so on rawhide
openal-soft{,-devel} have Obsoletes (not conflicts): openal{,-devel}.
Note that this will require rebuilds of packages depending on
openal on rawhide (because of soname bump).
On F-10/11 the whole rebuild is not preferable, however it seems that
actually openal-soft is also needed on F-10/11 to fix some bugs
(bug 515109). So on F-10/11, it was decided to make openal and
openal-soft installable in parallel (not making openal-soft obsolete
openal) and make openal-devel and openal-soft-devel in conflict (not
making openal-soft-devel obsolete openal-devel) to avoid mass rebuild.
Regards,
Mamoru
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Confusion with openal-soft
First of all, please make it clear under what branch
you want to discuss, devel, F-11 or F-10.
Michael Schwendt wrote, at 08/17/2009 03:52 AM +9:00:
On Mon, 17 Aug 2009 00:30:31 +0900, Mamoru wrote:
Michael Schwendt wrote, at 08/16/2009 11:47 PM +9:00:
On Sun, 16 Aug 2009 22:39:37 +0900, Mamoru wrote:
Michael Schwendt wrote, at 08/16/2009 09:29 PM +9:00:
On Sun, 16 Aug 2009 14:04:14 +0200, LinuxDonald wrote:
I have updated the packages for F-10 and F-11 with conflicts and without
obseltues :)
Explicit Conflicts need the approval of the Fedora Packaging Committee.
This occurs only on F-10/11 and not on rawhide.
Please see the discussion on bug 515109 for details.
First it is pointed out that parallel installable packages would be
preferred, then there is a jump to making them conflict. Why?
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Conflicts
To be clear, openal and openal-soft can be installable in parallel
(because of the same library with the different soversion),
however openal-devel and openal-soft-devel is actually in conflict.
Why? In openal-soft-devel I see a pkgconfig file. Surely that one
can be modified to point to relocated headers and libopenal.so
Again,
- On rawhide opanal-soft is intended to replace openal _completely_
(i.e. openal is to be removed from rawhide tree once F12alpha freeze
ends)
So on rawhide there is no need that openal-soft should be relocated.
Just openal{-devel} is to be dropped.
- And I don't think there is a strong need for avoiding conflict
on -devel packages (not on between openal/openal-soft) on F-10/11.
If you really think even openal{,-soft}-devel conflict must be
avoid even on F-11/10 (I am not speaking for rawhide tree here),
please visit bug 515109 if you have a good suggestion.
My interest in this is because I'd like to know where we are with
regard to the rather complex Fedora Packaging:Conflicts policies?
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Conflicts#Header_Name_Conflicts
[...] Put the headers in a subdirectory of /usr/include. [...]
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Conflicts#Compat_Package_Conflicts
[...] Whenever possible, this should be avoided. [...]
So, two times it is recommended to let the packages coexist. openal-soft
is not a compatibility package. The old openal at most could be
described as a compat package in disguise after introducing openal-soft.
Again openal{,-soft} can be installable in parallel (and on F-10/11 they are
made as such).
We don't need more SHOULD type of guidelines like that, if it's too easy
to choose the lazy packaging or if explicit Conflicts are the 1st choice.
Regards,
Mamoru
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: rawhide report: 20090812 changes
Rawhide Report wrote, at 08/12/2009 07:14 PM +9:00: Compose started at Wed Aug 12 06:15:05 UTC 2009 Broken deps for i386 -- sugar-pippy-34-2.fc12.i686 requires libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) sugar-pippy-34-2.fc12.i686 requires libc.so.6()(64bit) sugar-pippy-34-2.fc12.i686 requires libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) sugar-pippy-34-2.fc12.i686 requires libm.so.6()(64bit) sugar-pippy-34-2.fc12.i686 requires libm.so.6(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit) sugar-pippy-34-2.fc12.i686 requires libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit) sugar-pippy-34-2.fc12.i686 requires libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) sugar-pippy-34-2.fc12.i686 requires libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4)(64bit) sugar-pippy-34-2.fc12.i686 requires libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) This is very strange and should not happen. Actually this i686 binary package contains the following binary files: /usr/share/sugar/activities/Pippy.activity/library/pippy/physics/box2d/box2d_linux64/_Box2D2.so /usr/share/sugar/activities/Pippy.activity/library/pippy/physics/box2d/box2d_linux32/_Box2D2.so These files - are installed under %_datadir, although these are arch-dependent - and it seems these files are pre-compiled files in the tarball. Regards, Mamoru -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
About mass bug filing for error output with --excludedocs
Please postpone fixing scriptlets for this issue until some conclusion gets reached on fedora-packaging-list. Regards, Mamoru -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: sponsor request of ibus-anthy
Takao Fujiwara wrote, at 08/04/2009 03:49 PM +9:00: Hi, I'd like to get the sponsor role of ibus-anthy to commit patches. Would you give the role? Thanks, fujiwara Perhaps it is better that you would contact Petersen-san petersen_AT_redhat.com Regards, Mamoru -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Rawhide mock builds broken
Jason L Tibbitts III wrote, at 08/01/2009 12:46 AM +9:00: JLT == Jason L Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu writes: JLT So useradd must have changed its behavior quite recently. It could be shadow-4.1.4.1-sysacc.patch, I guess, but that was built in rawhide on the 16th of this month and I've done plenty of builds since then. - J Because with rpm-4.7.0-4.fc12 (built on 2009-05-14), cron related scripts are split into rpm-cron subpackage so until 2009-07-27 or so initial buildroot did not pull cronie in. Currently F-11 rpm-4.7.1-2.fc11 is intentionally tagged as both dist-f11-updates-candidate and dist-f12, and rawhide uses this rpm now. so now F-12 initial buildroot pulls cronie in. Regards, Mamoru -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: F12 mass rebuild status
Jan Safranek wrote, at 07/30/2009 05:39 PM +9:00: On 07/30/2009 01:40 AM, Jesse Keating wrote: http://jkeating.fedorapeople.org/needed-f12-rebuilds.html jsafrane (1): OpenIPMI It seems to me your script just forgot to build the package - it correctly bumped release number, but I can't see any koji builds. When I try 'make build', koji compiles the package correctly (i.e. the package is rebuilt now). It seems that when building N* O* P* packages, something wrong occured on koji (network trouble) and make srpm failed on these packages: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/tasks?start=7850owner=jkeatingstate=allview=toplevelmethod=allorder=-completion_time Regards, Mamoru -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: rpms/rubygem-rails/devel .cvsignore, 1.8, 1.9 import.log, 1.1, 1.2 rubygem-rails.spec, 1.13, 1.14 sources, 1.8, 1.9
Hello:
Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote, at 07/26/2009 07:42 PM +9:00:
Author: kanarip
Update of /cvs/pkgs/rpms/rubygem-rails/devel
In directory cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com:/tmp/cvs-serv28785/devel
Modified Files:
.cvsignore import.log rubygem-rails.spec sources
Log Message:
2.3.3-1
snip
Index: import.log
===
RCS file: /cvs/pkgs/rpms/rubygem-rails/devel/import.log,v
retrieving revision 1.1
retrieving revision 1.2
diff -u -p -r1.1 -r1.2
--- import.log 16 Mar 2009 12:38:55 - 1.1
+++ import.log 26 Jul 2009 10:42:17 - 1.2
@@ -1 +1,2 @@
rubygem-rails-2_3_2-1_fc10:HEAD:rubygem-rails-2.3.2-1.fc10.src.rpm:1237207120
+rubygem-rails-2_3_3-1_fc11:HEAD:rubygem-rails-2.3.3-1.fc11.src.rpm:1248604918
Index: rubygem-rails.spec
===
snip
+# Delete zero-length files
+find %{buildroot}/%{geminstdir} -type f -size 0c -exec rm -rvf {} \;
+
snip
%changelog
-* Wed Jul 24 2009 Scott Seago sse...@redhat.com - 2.3.2-3
-- Remove the 'delete zero length files' bit, as some of these are needed.
-
-* Wed May 6 2009 David Lutterkort lut...@redhat.com - 2.3.2-2
-- Fix replacement of shebang lines; broke scripts/generate (bz 496480)
+* Sun Jul 26 2009 Jeroen van Meeuwen j.van.meeu...@ogd.nl - 2.3.3-1
+- New upstream version
* Mon Mar 16 2009 Jeroen van Meeuwen j.van.meeu...@ogd.nl - 2.3.2-1
- New upstream version
Please check out CVS module before committing your change.
You have reverted the changes by Scott Seago to fix bug 496480.
Especially please be very careful when using cvs-import.sh as using
cvs-import.sh will easily lead to this type of reverting.
Regards,
Mamoru
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
rpms/monafont/devel monafont.spec,1.7,1.8
Author: mtasaka
Update of /cvs/extras/rpms/monafont/devel
In directory cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com:/tmp/cvs-serv27250
Modified Files:
monafont.spec
Log Message:
Prepare for mass rebuild
Index: monafont.spec
===
RCS file: /cvs/extras/rpms/monafont/devel/monafont.spec,v
retrieving revision 1.7
retrieving revision 1.8
diff -u -p -r1.7 -r1.8
--- monafont.spec 26 Mar 2009 17:42:36 - 1.7
+++ monafont.spec 24 Jul 2009 07:51:34 - 1.8
@@ -1,3 +1,5 @@
+%{!?_fontbasedir: %global _fontbasedir %{_datadir}/fonts}
+
%definearchivename monafont
%defineprojectname mona
@@ -27,7 +29,7 @@
%defineobsoletes_EVR 2.90-5.999
%definesazanami_ver20040629
-%definevlgothic_ver20090204
+%definevlgothic_ver20090612
%definecatalog_dir %{_sysconfdir}/X11/fontpath.d
@@ -40,7 +42,7 @@ Japanese text arts correctly.
Name: %{archivename}
Version: 2.90
-Release: 8%{?dist}
+Release: 9%{?dist}
Summary: Japanese font for text arts
# monafont itself is under public domain
@@ -212,16 +214,20 @@ fi
%verify(not md5 size mtime)%{fontdir_bitmap_full}/fonts.dir
%{fontdir_bitmap_full}/*.pcf.gz
-%define_space %(echo )
+%define_font_pkg_name %{name_ttf_s}
%define_fontdir%{fontdir_ttf_s_full}
-%_font_pkg -n -n%{_space}%{fontdir_ttf_s} mona-%{real_family_ttf_s}.ttf
+%_font_pkg mona-%{real_family_ttf_s}.ttf
%doc ttfsrc/README-ttf.txt
+%define_font_pkg_name %{name_ttf_v}
%define_fontdir%{fontdir_ttf_v_full}
-%_font_pkg -n -n%{_space}%{fontdir_ttf_v} mona-%{real_family_ttf_v}.ttf
+%_font_pkg mona-%{real_family_ttf_v}.ttf
%doc ttfsrc/README-ttf.txt
%changelog
+* Fri Jul 24 2009 Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp - 2.90-9
+- Adjust for fontpackages 1.22
+
* Fri Mar 27 2009 Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp - 2.90-8
- F-11: Again rebuild for new virtual font Provides (bug 491969)
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
Fedora-perl-devel-list mailing list
Fedora-perl-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-perl-devel-list
Re: xulrunner-1.9.1.1-1.fc11.x86_64 update pulls in i586 packages
Braden McDaniel wrote, at 07/23/2009 03:38 PM +9:00: Is this as it should be? Dependencies Resolved Package Arch Version Repository Size Updating: xulrunner x86_64 1.9.1.1-1.fc11 updates 9.5 M Installing for dependencies: GConf2i586 2.26.2-1.fc11 updates 1.7 M ORBit2i586 2.14.17-1.fc11 fedora186 k snip xulrunner i586 1.9.1-0.20.beta4.fc11 fedora 10 M zlib i586 1.2.3-22.fc11 fedora 75 k Updating for dependencies: snip epiphany x86_64 2.26.3-1.fc11 updates 4.9 M epiphany-extensions x86_64 2.26.1-4.fc11 updates 1.0 M glib2 x86_64 2.20.4-1.fc11 updates 1.6 M glib2-devel x86_64 2.20.4-1.fc11 updates 1.3 M pango x86_64 1.24.4-1.fc11 updates 407 k pango-devel x86_64 1.24.4-1.fc11 updates 321 k xulrunner-devel x86_64 1.9.1.1-1.fc11 updates 3.9 M rel-eng team is now working on this: https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/2008 Regards, Mamoru -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: epiphany blocking security updates
Bruno Wolff III wrote, at 07/23/2009 06:38 PM +9:00: epiphany-2.26.3-2.fc11 in koji has been built against the newer gecko-libs but wasn't pushed to bodhi (in either updates or updates-testing). People who have it installed are not going to get the firefox related updates that were recently pushed to updates without manual intervention. Fedora release engineering team is now working on this [1]. [1] https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/2008 Regards, Mamoru -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
rpms/monafont/devel noautobuild,NONE,1.1
Author: mtasaka Update of /cvs/extras/rpms/monafont/devel In directory cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com:/tmp/cvs-serv11087 Added Files: noautobuild Log Message: Need fixing --- NEW FILE noautobuild --- Need fixing -- Fedora Extras Perl SIG http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl Fedora-perl-devel-list mailing list Fedora-perl-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-perl-devel-list
Re: Any Ruby Packagers Here?
Frank Murphy wrote, at 07/15/2009 02:35 AM +9:00: I don't know ruby. But: http://tinyurl.com/9m4wzr is some ruby stuff to identify snippets of Code. Any ruby knowing people willing to package it? Regards, Frank It would be appreciated if you would add the request on here [1] so that we can keep track of this. However as far as I checked quickly rubygem-chrislo-sourceclassifier 0.2.3 depends on rubygem-echoe and rubygem-echoe is legally problematic [2] So it cannot be expected that rubygem-chrislo-sourceclassifier will be imported into Fedora soon. [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_maintainers_wishlist [2] http://rubyforge.org/forum/forum.php?thread_id=44709forum_id=13986 Regards, Mamoru -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Fedora rawhide rebuild in mock status 2009-07-10 x86_64
Christoph Wickert wrote, at 07/16/2009 07:58 AM +9:00:
Am Mittwoch, den 15.07.2009, 16:22 -0500 schrieb Matt Domsch:
I wonder... My build systems are running F11 using ext4 file system,
while the koji buildsystems will still be using ext3. It seems like
make is getting confused as to whether or not something got created;
timestamps may not be getting updated correctly.
Indeed. Builds fine in my homdir, which is ext3, but when I build it
inside /usr/src/ it goes into an infinite loop. Weird. Where is the bug,
or where to file it?
Regards,
Christoph
I only tried to rebuild lxappearance-0.2.1-1.fc12 and the infinite loop
on po/ directory can be reproduced on Kevin's 64 bits machine (however
not reproducible on i586 machine).
What is the problem here is that po/Makefile (after po/Makefile is created)
says:
-
212 Makefile POTFILES: stamp-it
213 @if test ! -f $@; then \
214rm -f stamp-it; \
215$(MAKE) stamp-it; \
216 fi
217
218 stamp-it: Makefile.in.in $(top_builddir)/config.status POTFILES.in
219 cd $(top_builddir) \
220 CONFIG_FILES=$(subdir)/Makefile.in CONFIG_HEADERS=
CONFIG_LINKS= \
221 $(SHELL) ./config.status
-
So, po/Makefile expects that po/stamp-it exists and po/stamp-it expects
that it is created by config.status, however config.status does not create
po/stamp-it, which will cause occasional infinite loop.
Note that config.status is created by configure. Then configure.in
says:
-
29 dnl Add the languages which your application supports here.
30 ALL_LINGUAS=af ar cs da de es et eu fa fi fr gl hr hu id it ja ko lt
ml ms nb nl nn pl ps pt pt_BR ru sk sl sv tr uk ur ur_PK vi zh_CN zh_TW
31 AM_GLIB_GNU_GETTEXT
-
So this configure uses glib's gettext method, however po/ directory
uses stamp-it method Makefile.in.in, which is actually based
on /usr/share/intltool/Makefile.in.in in intltool and not
/usr/share/glib-2.0/gettext/po/Makefile.in.in in glib2-devel.
So po/Makefile.in.in needs fixing, however the easiest workaround is:
--
%build
%configure
touch -r po/Makefile po/stamp-it
make %{?_smp_mflags}
--
Regards,
Mamoru
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Problem with ruby package with binary content...
Darryl L. Pierce wrote, at 07/15/2009 12:23 AM +9:00:
This question is related to:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=505589
When I remove the strip line, then the build process fails with the
complaint:
Found
'/home/mcpierce/Packaging/rpms/BUILDROOT/rubygem-RedCloth-4.1.9-5.fc12.x86_=
64'
in installed files; aborting
I'm not sure what's wrong here. The %install portion of my spec file is
as follows:
---8[snip]---
rm -rf %{buildroot}
install -d -m0755 %{buildroot}%{gemdir}
install -d -m0755 %{buildroot}%{ruby_sitelib}
install -d -m0755 %{buildroot}%{ruby_sitearch}
install -d -m0755 %{buildroot}%{_bindir}
gem install --local --install-dir %{buildroot}%{gemdir} \
--force -V --rdoc %{SOURCE0}
cp -a %{buildroot}%{gemdir}/bin/* %{buildroot}%{_bindir}
mv %{extensionddir}%{gemlibname}
%{buildroot}%{ruby_sitearch}/%{gemlibname}
rm -rf %{extensionddir}
# strip %{buildroot}%{ruby_sitearch}/%{gemlibname}
rm %{installroot}/lib/%{gemlibname}
cp %{installroot}/lib/redcloth.rb
%{buildroot}%{ruby_sitelib}/redcloth.rb
rm -rf %{buildroot}%{gemdir}/bin
find %{buildroot}%{geminstdir}/bin -type f | xargs chmod a+x
find %{buildroot}%{geminstdir} -name *.rb | xargs chmod a+x
find %{buildroot}%{geminstdir} -type f -name \*.rb | xargs chmod 0644
find %{buildroot}%{geminstdir} -type f -name \*.rb | \
xargs grep -l ^#!%{_bindir}/env $file | xargs chmod 0755
rm %{installroot}/.require_paths
---8[snip]---
Any ideas?
This is because with your spec file gem is directly installed under
%buildroot. So some C codes in the gem (usually under ext/ directory)
are compiled under %buildroot and the string %buildroot
is embedded in the built binary (with gcc -g). This will make
/usr/lib/rpm/check-buildroot complain.
The correct way is to expand (install) gem file once under %_builddir
(at %prep or %build) and and copy all (under %_builddir) under
%buildroot at %install like:
---
%prep
%setup -q -c -T
mkdir -p ./%{gemdir}
export CONFIGURE_ARGS=--with-cflags='%{optflags}'
gem install --local --install-dir .%{gemdir} \
--force -V --rdoc %{SOURCE0}
%build
%install
rm -rf %{buildroot}
mkdir -p %{buildroot}%{gemdir}
cp -a .%{gemdir}/* %{buildroot}%{gemdir}
---
With this debuginfo rpm will also be created correctly.
Regards,
Mamoru
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: issues with the koji repo?
Peter Robinson wrote, at 07/07/2009 03:26 PM +9:00: Hi All, Is there currently an issue with the koji repo process? A pair of rawhide chain builds that I ran last night failed and when I tried them again this morning the previous package still wasn't in the repo to build against. Similarly a F-11 build override that was tagged 10 or so hours ago is still not available. For F-12. the newrepo task http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1457708 is hanging for more than 11 hours (I don't know why). For F-11, the last new repo task was http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1457163 , which was 15 hours ago. Would someone restart koji's new repo tasks? Regards, Mamoru -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Help with d????????? ? ? ? ? ? .gvfs
William M. Quarles wrote, at 07/06/2009 08:32 PM +9:00: I have a directory in my home directory named .gvfs with the following properties when I do an ls -Al: d? ? ? ??? .gvfs I can't access it, delete it, nor rename it; nor can root do any of those things. I keep getting error messages in the terminal saying as such, too. Does anybody know how I can fix this? Thanks, William I guess you are seeing this issue: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=493565 Several people (including me) reported this issue, however no one has found how to reproduce this exactly and no solution is found yet. Regards, Mamoru -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
newrepo tasks freezing?
Hello: It seems that on koji newrepo tasks are all freezing: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1444680 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1444681 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1444815 Would someone investigate what is occuring? Regards, Mamoru -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: newrepo tasks freezing?
Mamoru Tasaka wrote, at 07/01/2009 04:29 PM +9:00: Hello: It seems that on koji newrepo tasks are all freezing: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1444680 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1444681 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1444815 Would someone investigate what is occuring? It seems that new newrepo tasks completed successfully. Mamoru -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: f11 - missing font?
Frank Cox wrote, at 07/01/2009 06:41 AM +9:00: Some of the xscreensaver hacks seem to be looking for font(s) that aren't present on this machine: memscroller: unable to load font: -*-courier-bold-r-*-*-*-320-*-*-m-*-*-* memscroller: unable to load font: -*-courier-bold-r-*-*-*-480-*-*-m-*-*-* memscroller: unable to load font: -*-courier-bold-r-*-*-*-960-*-*-m-*-*-* memscroller: unable to load font: -*-courier-bold-r-*-*-*-1440-*-*-m-*-*-* This is a new set-up-from-scratch F11 machine, not one that was upgraded from a previous version. What's missing? Would you file a bug against xscreensaver? Regards, Mamoru -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Re: f11 - missing font?
Mamoru Tasaka wrote, at 07/01/2009 08:02 PM +9:00: Frank Cox wrote, at 07/01/2009 06:41 AM +9:00: Some of the xscreensaver hacks seem to be looking for font(s) that aren't present on this machine: memscroller: unable to load font: -*-courier-bold-r-*-*-*-320-*-*-m-*-*-* memscroller: unable to load font: -*-courier-bold-r-*-*-*-480-*-*-m-*-*-* memscroller: unable to load font: -*-courier-bold-r-*-*-*-960-*-*-m-*-*-* memscroller: unable to load font: -*-courier-bold-r-*-*-*-1440-*-*-m-*-*-* This is a new set-up-from-scratch F11 machine, not one that was upgraded from a previous version. What's missing? Would you file a bug against xscreensaver? Ah, I checked the source code and actually this is not a bug. Regards, Mamoru -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Re: F10 subversion - python problem
Peter J. Stieber wrote, at 07/01/2009 01:35 AM +9:00: PS = Pete Stieber PS This machine acts as a Subversion server. I use PS the mailer.py hook to send emails with commit PS messages. After a reboot I'm getting the PS following error when I commit... PS PS Warning: post-commit hook failed (exit code 1) with output: PS Traceback (most recent call last): PSFile /usr/local/svn/hooks/mailer.py, line 42, in module PS import svn.fs PSFile /usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/svn/fs.py, line 19, in module PS from libsvn.fs import * PSFile /usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/libsvn/fs.py, line 7, in module PS import _fs PS ImportError: /usr/lib/libsvn_fs_base-1.so.0: undefined symbol: db_create PS PS I found the following... PS PS http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-list/2005-April/317312.html PS PS But I don't understand why the updates would PS cause this problem to occur. PS PS Any suggestions? Additional info... ldd -r libsvn_fs_base-1.so.0 undefined symbol: db_create(./libsvn_fs_base-1.so.0) linux-gate.so.1 = (0x008a5000) libsvn_delta-1.so.0 = /usr/lib/libsvn_delta-1.so.0 (0x0084a000) libsvn_subr-1.so.0 = /usr/lib/libsvn_subr-1.so.0 (0x001b6000) libaprutil-1.so.0 = /usr/lib/libaprutil-1.so.0 (0x006a5000) libapr-1.so.0 = /usr/lib/libapr-1.so.0 (0x00426000) libsvn_fs_util-1.so.0 = /usr/lib/libsvn_fs_util-1.so.0 (0x00f34000) libpthread.so.0 = /lib/libpthread.so.0 (0x00d1a000) libc.so.6 = /lib/libc.so.6 (0x001f4000) libz.so.1 = /lib/libz.so.1 (0x0011) libuuid.so.1 = /lib/libuuid.so.1 (0x00bff000) libcrypt.so.1 = /lib/libcrypt.so.1 (0x005e6000) libexpat.so.1 = /lib/libexpat.so.1 (0x00124000) libdl.so.2 = /lib/libdl.so.2 (0x00e2e000) /lib/ld-linux.so.2 (0x00abc000) undefined symbol: db_env_create(./libsvn_fs_base-1.so.0) undefined symbol: db_version(./libsvn_fs_base-1.so.0) undefined symbol: db_strerror(./libsvn_fs_base-1.so.0) Pete This issue was filed two days ago: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=508568 Regards, Mamoru -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Re: ruby-sqlite3 conflicts with rubygem-sqlite3-ruby
Michael Schwendt wrote, at 06/15/2009 03:52 AM +9:00: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/472621 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/472622 Reported in Nov 2008. Is it really that difficult to fix it? Well, actually these two packages are _the same_ (currently versions of rpms on Fedora are different, however) The difference is that ruby-sqlite3 creates non-gem ruby module, while rubygem-sqlite3-ruby creates ruby gem. Curret ruby packaging guideline says that [1] Packaging for Gem and non-Gem use If the same Ruby library is to be packaged for use as a Gem and as a straight Ruby library without Gem support, it must be packaged as a Gem first. And we have the way and allow to create non-gem ruby module (rpm) packages as a subpackage of a package based on rubygem. So for this case ruby-sqlite3 srpm must be obsoleted by rubygem-sqlite3-ruby srpm and ruby-sqlite3 binary rpm should be created as the subpackage of rubygem-sqlite3-ruby. [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Ruby#Packaging_for_Gem_and_non-Gem_use Regards, Mamoru -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: dist-f12 buildroot broken due to conflicting /%{_lib}/libblkid.so.1 versions
Paul Howarth wrote, at 06/08/2009 06:08 PM +9:00: Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1398761 ... Transaction Check Error: DEBUG util.py:256:file /lib64/libblkid.so.1 conflicts between attempted installs of e2fsprogs-libs-1.41.6-1.fc12.x86_64 and libblkid-2.15.1-0.1.fc12.x86_64 I guess one of these packages needs fixing but something will have to be untagged before that can be done. Paul. Actually all dist-f12 builds are now failing. util-linux-ng-2.15.1-0.1.fc12 should be untagged for now, I guess. Mamoru -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: dist-f12 buildroot broken due to conflicting /%{_lib}/libblkid.so.1 versions
Karel Zak wrote, at 06/08/2009 06:37 PM +9:00: On Mon, Jun 08, 2009 at 10:08:23AM +0100, Paul Howarth wrote: Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1398761 ... Transaction Check Error: DEBUG util.py:256:file /lib64/libblkid.so.1 conflicts between attempted installs of e2fsprogs-libs-1.41.6-1.fc12.x86_64 and libblkid-2.15.1-0.1.fc12.x86_64 I guess one of these packages needs fixing but something will have to be untagged before that can be done. I'm moving libblkid from e2fsprogs to util-linux-ng right now. It's expected problem and should be fixed after e2fsprogs rebuild. Karel The problem is that now it is failing on creating minimum buildroot (i.e. you cannot rebuild modified e2fsprogs unless new util-linux-ng is untagged) Mamoru -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Screensaver usurpation
Steve Searle wrote, at 05/28/2009 12:06 AM +9:00:
Around 03:59pm on Wednesday, May 27, 2009 (UK time), Rahul Sundaram scrawled:
On 05/27/2009 08:21 PM, Beartooth wrote:
I've tried the big hammer more than once -- told yum to remove
gnome-screensaver; but it always threatens to take xscreensaver with it.
Is there anything I can do about this usurpation? Or if not,
might some developer in an idle moment take a hard look at the
dependencies?
I don't know what the trouble is. Here I go, on a system with GNOME
install, I install xscreensaver
http://fpaste.org/paste/13109
Then I remove gnome-screensaver
http://fpaste.org/paste/13110
No problems. Show us your output
Note, I am not the OP, but for me:
# yum remove gnome-screensaver
...
Dependencies Resolved
Package Arch Version Repository Size
Removing:
gnome-screensaver i386 2.24.1-2.fc10installed 3.4 M
Removing for dependencies:
fedora-screensaver-theme noarch 1.0.0-3.fc10 installed 18 k
fedorainfinity-screensaver-theme noarch 1.0.0-1.fc8 installed 102 k
xscreensaver-extras-gss i386 1:5.08-5.fc10installed 43 k
xscreensaver-gl-extras-gssi386 1:5.08-5.fc10installed 28
k
I don't want to lose these dependencies.
Steve
xscreensaver{,-gl}-extras-gss is not needed when you want to use xscreensaver.
They are needed when you want to use xscreensaver hacks with
gnome-screensaver.
Regards,
Mamoru
--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Re: mimehandler automatic Provides?
Michael Schwendt wrote, at 05/25/2009 05:35 PM +9:00: Are they related to http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/AutoFontsAndMimeInstaller ? Yes. audacity = 1.3.7-0.6.beta.fc11 Build Time 2009-03-02 16:40:30 GMT mimehandler(application/ogg) mimehandler(application/x-audacity-project) mimehandler(audio/basic) mimehandler(audio/x-aifc) mimehandler(audio/x-aiff) mimehandler(audio/x-aiffc) mimehandler(audio/x-wav) And in a later build they are not added anymore. audacity = 1.3.7-0.7.beta.fc11 Build Time 2009-05-13 08:50:08 GMT Searching the Wiki for mimehandler yields no results. I guess this is related to - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=494817 - and file seems to have changed between these two days. Note that Panu said that the above bug was fixed in F-12 rpm and actually 1.3.7-0.7.beta.fc12 has some mimetype Provides. Regards, Mamoru -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: bash null conditional
Craig White wrote, at 03/31/2009 03:27 AM +9:00: I'm in my bash book and looking on web but can't seem to resolve this simple problem. $ if [ -n grep A121 myfile.csv ]; then echo null; fi null $ if [ -n grep A125 myfile.csv ]; then echo null; fi null A125 definitely is null when I just run the grep command in the quotes but A121 definitely is not null. What am I missing on the if/null operator here? Craig Maybe what you want to is: $ if ! grep -q A125 myfile.csv ; then echo null ; fi ? -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Re: RPMs forward compatibility between releases
Frank Cox wrote, at 03/28/2009 01:24 PM +9:00: On Sat, 28 Mar 2009 03:18:54 +0100 Kevin Kofler wrote: But even that will not work with RPMs from Fedora 11 or (in the future) newer on Fedora 9 or older. Even the SRPMs have the new checksum format (SHA256 instead of MD5) which requires at least Fedora 10 with updates to interpret. (It's possible to manually unpack the SRPM using file-roller or Krusader though, which bypasses the checksum validations.) I'm hoping that I will continue to be able to compile pdftk on new Fedora releases. That's one piece of software that I would really hate to not have available. Just noting that while pdftk is not available on F-9, now pdftk is available on F-10/11. http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/packageinfo?packageID=2742 Regards, Mamoru -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
rpms/efont-unicode-bdf/devel efont-unicode-bdf.spec,1.4,1.5
Author: mtasaka
Update of /cvs/extras/rpms/efont-unicode-bdf/devel
In directory cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com:/tmp/cvs-serv5760
Modified Files:
efont-unicode-bdf.spec
Log Message:
* Fri Mar 27 2009 Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp - 0.4.2-9
- F-11: Again rebuild for new virtual font Provides (#491958)
Index: efont-unicode-bdf.spec
===
RCS file: /cvs/extras/rpms/efont-unicode-bdf/devel/efont-unicode-bdf.spec,v
retrieving revision 1.4
retrieving revision 1.5
diff -u -r1.4 -r1.5
--- efont-unicode-bdf.spec 23 Feb 2009 22:10:59 - 1.4
+++ efont-unicode-bdf.spec 26 Mar 2009 17:24:21 - 1.5
@@ -6,7 +6,7 @@
Name: %{name}
Version:0.4.2
-Release:8%{?dist}
+Release:9%{?dist}
Summary:Unicode font by Electronic Font Open Laboratory
Group: User Interface/X
@@ -112,6 +112,9 @@
%{catalogdir}/fonts-%{name}
%changelog
+* Fri Mar 27 2009 Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp - 0.4.2-9
+- F-11: Again rebuild for new virtual font Provides (#491958)
+
* Tue Feb 24 2009 Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp - 0.4.2-8
- F-11: Mass rebuild
___
Fedora-fonts-bugs-list mailing list
Fedora-fonts-bugs-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-bugs-list
rpms/monafont/devel monafont.spec,1.6,1.7
Author: mtasaka
Update of /cvs/extras/rpms/monafont/devel
In directory cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com:/tmp/cvs-serv8040
Modified Files:
monafont.spec
Log Message:
* Fri Mar 27 2009 Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp - 2.90-8
- F-11: Again rebuild for new virtual font Provides (bug 491969)
Index: monafont.spec
===
RCS file: /cvs/extras/rpms/monafont/devel/monafont.spec,v
retrieving revision 1.6
retrieving revision 1.7
diff -u -r1.6 -r1.7
--- monafont.spec 23 Feb 2009 21:37:22 - 1.6
+++ monafont.spec 26 Mar 2009 17:42:36 - 1.7
@@ -40,7 +40,7 @@
Name: %{archivename}
Version: 2.90
-Release: 7%{?dist}
+Release: 8%{?dist}
Summary: Japanese font for text arts
# monafont itself is under public domain
@@ -222,6 +222,9 @@
%doc ttfsrc/README-ttf.txt
%changelog
+* Fri Mar 27 2009 Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp - 2.90-8
+- F-11: Again rebuild for new virtual font Provides (bug 491969)
+
* Tue Feb 24 2009 Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp - 2.90-7
- F-11: Mass rebuild
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
Fedora-perl-devel-list mailing list
Fedora-perl-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-perl-devel-list
Re: F10 Things Breaking
Marko Vojinovic wrote, at 03/22/2009 09:14 AM +9:00: On Saturday 21 March 2009 23:05, Conor Mac Aoidh wrote: I have been having problems with my Fedora 10 installation recently. I don't know what it is but a hell of a lot of things are breaking. First I installed an upgrade that broke Yum, which I have fixed. Then I installed another update that seems to have broken a number of things What exactly did you do? If you use yum to install stuff, it should not break. If you manually installed something (why?), that is probably the reason that things got broken. Also I recently installed the kooldock which operates similar to a Mac OSX dock. It was working but now when I click on one of the doc items I get the following error: Kooldock is a very lame substitute for the real Mac OSX dock (tried both myself). Incidentally, that real Mac OSX dock is called cairo-dock, and is available for Fedora: yum install cairo-dock Just a note: Red Hat Legal felt that these two packages (kooldock and cairo-dock) have the possibility of infringing Apple's software patent and removed these two packages from rawhide tree. That is, these two pacakges will no longer be available on Fedora 11. Regards, Mamoru -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
rpms/efont-unicode-bdf/devel efont-unicode-bdf.spec,1.3,1.4
Author: mtasaka
Update of /cvs/extras/rpms/efont-unicode-bdf/devel
In directory
cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com:/tmp/cvs-serv30615/efont-unicode-bdf/devel
Modified Files:
efont-unicode-bdf.spec
Log Message:
Mass rebuild, etc part 2
Index: efont-unicode-bdf.spec
===
RCS file: /cvs/extras/rpms/efont-unicode-bdf/devel/efont-unicode-bdf.spec,v
retrieving revision 1.3
retrieving revision 1.4
diff -u -r1.3 -r1.4
--- efont-unicode-bdf.spec 18 Aug 2007 07:14:27 - 1.3
+++ efont-unicode-bdf.spec 23 Feb 2009 22:10:59 - 1.4
@@ -6,7 +6,7 @@
Name: %{name}
Version:0.4.2
-Release:7%{?dist}
+Release:8%{?dist}
Summary:Unicode font by Electronic Font Open Laboratory
Group: User Interface/X
@@ -112,6 +112,9 @@
%{catalogdir}/fonts-%{name}
%changelog
+* Tue Feb 24 2009 Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp - 0.4.2-8
+- F-11: Mass rebuild
+
* Sat Aug 18 2007 Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp - 0.4.2-7
- Drop X related dependency completely, along with chkfontpath drop
(related to #252268, #252275)
___
Fedora-fonts-bugs-list mailing list
Fedora-fonts-bugs-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-bugs-list
rpms/monafont/devel monafont.spec,1.5,1.6
Author: mtasaka
Update of /cvs/extras/rpms/monafont/devel
In directory cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com:/tmp/cvs-serv23477/monafont/devel
Modified Files:
monafont.spec
Log Message:
Mass rebuild and etc
Index: monafont.spec
===
RCS file: /cvs/extras/rpms/monafont/devel/monafont.spec,v
retrieving revision 1.5
retrieving revision 1.6
diff -u -r1.5 -r1.6
--- monafont.spec 19 Feb 2009 05:33:40 - 1.5
+++ monafont.spec 23 Feb 2009 21:37:22 - 1.6
@@ -40,7 +40,7 @@
Name: %{archivename}
Version: 2.90
-Release: 6%{?dist}
+Release: 7%{?dist}
Summary: Japanese font for text arts
# monafont itself is under public domain
@@ -222,6 +222,9 @@
%doc ttfsrc/README-ttf.txt
%changelog
+* Tue Feb 24 2009 Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp - 2.90-7
+- F-11: Mass rebuild
+
* Thu Feb 19 2009 Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp - 2.90.6
- F-11: font naming scheme change
Now mona-{bitmap,vlgothic,sazanami}-fonts binary rpms are
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
Fedora-perl-devel-list mailing list
Fedora-perl-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-perl-devel-list
rpms/monafont/devel monafont.spec,1.4,1.5
Author: mtasaka
Update of /cvs/extras/rpms/monafont/devel
In directory cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com:/tmp/cvs-serv28955
Modified Files:
monafont.spec
Log Message:
* Thu Feb 19 2009 Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp - 2.90.6
- F-11: font naming scheme change
Now mona-{bitmap,vlgothic,sazanami}-fonts binary rpms are
created
Index: monafont.spec
===
RCS file: /cvs/extras/rpms/monafont/devel/monafont.spec,v
retrieving revision 1.4
retrieving revision 1.5
diff -u -r1.4 -r1.5
--- monafont.spec 5 Dec 2008 04:38:15 - 1.4
+++ monafont.spec 19 Feb 2009 05:33:40 - 1.5
@@ -1,31 +1,46 @@
-%definefontnamemona-fonts
%definearchivename monafont
-%definename_bitmap %{fontname}-bitmap
-%definename_ttf_s %{fontname}-sazanami
-%definename_ttf_v %{fontname}-VLGothic
-
-%definefontbasedir %{_datadir}/fonts
-%definefontdir_bitmap %{fontbasedir}/%{name_bitmap}
-%definefontdir_ttf_s %{fontbasedir}/%{name_ttf_s}
-%definefontdir_ttf_v %{fontbasedir}/%{name_ttf_v}
+%defineprojectname mona
+%definefontname%{projectname}
+%definefamily_ttf_ssazanami
+%definefamily_ttf_vvlgothic
+%definereal_family_ttf_s sazanami
+%definereal_family_ttf_v VLGothic
+
+%definerpmname_suffix fonts
+
+%definefontdir_bitmap %{projectname}-bitmap
+%definefontdir_ttf_s %{projectname}-%{family_ttf_s}
+%definefontdir_ttf_v %{projectname}-%{family_ttf_v}
+
+%definename_bitmap
%{fontdir_bitmap}-%{rpmname_suffix}
+%definename_ttf_s
%{fontdir_ttf_s}-%{rpmname_suffix}
+%definename_ttf_v
%{fontdir_ttf_v}-%{rpmname_suffix}
+
+%defineold_name_bitmap mona-fonts-bitmap
+%defineold_name_ttf_s mona-fonts-sazanami
+%defineold_name_ttf_v mona-fonts-VLGothic
+
+%definefontdir_bitmap_full
%{_fontbasedir}/%{fontdir_bitmap}
+%definefontdir_ttf_s_full %{_fontbasedir}/%{fontdir_ttf_s}
+%definefontdir_ttf_v_full %{_fontbasedir}/%{fontdir_ttf_v}
+%defineobsoletes_EVR 2.90-5.999
%definesazanami_ver20040629
-%definevlgothic_ver20081203
+%definevlgothic_ver20090204
%definecatalog_dir %{_sysconfdir}/X11/fontpath.d
# misc
%defineshow_progress 0
-%if 0%{?fedora} = 8
-%defineuse_f_option1
-%else
-%undefine use_f_option
-%endif
+
+%definecommon_description \
+Mona Font is a Japanese proportional font which allows you to view \
+Japanese text arts correctly.
Name: %{archivename}
Version: 2.90
-Release: 5%{?dist}.2
+Release: 6%{?dist}
Summary: Japanese font for text arts
# monafont itself is under public domain
@@ -36,39 +51,39 @@
BuildRoot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
BuildArch: noarch
-# Write BuildRequires seperately
+BuildRequires: fontpackages-devel
%description
-Mona Font is a Japanese proportional font which allows you to view
-Japanese text arts correctly.
-
+%{common_description}
%package -n%{name_bitmap}
Summary: Bitmap Japanese font for text arts
Group: User Interface/X
License: Public Domain
-
# Write BuildRequires a bit verbosely
BuildRequires: perl
BuildRequires: xorg-x11-font-utils
+Obsoletes: %{old_name_bitmap} = %{obsoletes_EVR}
+Provides: %{old_name_bitmap} = %{version}-%{release}
%description -n%{name_bitmap}
-Mona Font is a Japanese proportional font which allows you to view
-Japanese text arts correctly.
-
+%{common_description}
%package -n%{name_ttf_s}
Summary: True Type Japanese font for text arts based on Sazanami
Group: User Interface/X
# monafont itself is Public Domain and this package borrows
-# Sazanami
+# sazanami
+# And the outline otf uses Kochi-substitute (later renamed to sazanami),
+# which is under BSD
License: BSD
-
-BuildRequires: sazanami-fonts-gothic = 0.%{sazanami_ver}
+BuildRequires: %{family_ttf_s}-gothic-fonts = 0.%{sazanami_ver}
+Requires: fontpackages-filesystem
+Obsoletes: %{old_name_ttf_s} = %{obsoletes_EVR}
+Provides: %{old_name_ttf_s} = %{version}-%{release}
%description -n%{name_ttf_s}
-Mona Font is a Japanese proportional font which
Re: gcc issue
Steve wrote, at 02/05/2009 11:26 PM +9:00: OK, now I am really confused. I went to rpmfind (http://rpmfind.net/linux/RPM/fedora/updates/9/x86_64/dhclient-4.0.0-22.fc9.x86_64.html) to get the dhcp src rpm and downloaded it. It comes from ftp://download.fedora.redhat.com/pub/fedora/linux/updates/9/SRPMS.newkey/dhcp-4.0.0-22.fc9.src.rpm When I ran rpm -qp on the downloaded rpm I get this: $ rpm -qp dhcp-4.0.0-22.fc9.src.rpm dhcp-4.0.0-22.fc9.ppc ppc?!!? Is this the correct rpm? No problem. Here ppc means the architecture where this srpm was created. However srpm is arch-independent regardless of on what platform the srpm were created. I installed the rpm anyway # rpm -iv dhcp-4.0.0-22.fc9.src.rpm which created, amongst other things /usr/src/redhat/SOURCES/dhcp-4.0.0.tar.gz I unpacked: # gunzip -cd dhcp-4.0.0.tar.gz | tar xvf - which created a /usr/src/redhat/SOURCES/dhcp-4.0.0 directory. I cd'd to the directory and ran # ./configure In that way you are not using the srpm you downloaded anymore. You are just unpacking the tarball (with no patched) and are compiling vanilla source by yourself. Perhaps what you want to do is $ rpmbuild -bc dhcp.spec after $ rpm -ivh dhcp-X.src.rpm . Please try $ man rpmbuild Regards, Mamoru -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Re: gcc issue
Steve wrote, at 02/05/2009 03:55 AM +9:00:
Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at wrote:
Steve wrote:
I had tried putting #define __USE_GNU in the code but that didn't make any
difference.
You need to #define _GNU_SOURCE, not __USE_GNU. glibc #undefs all the
__USE_* macros, then #defines them based on the _*_SOURCE macros you used.
...and now I know...
but that still doesn't explain why _GNU_SOURCE is not defined in the dhcp-4.0.0
src rpm.
Note that dhcp-4.0.0-22.fc9 srpm has:
-
CFLAGS=%{optflags} -fPIC -D_GNU_SOURCE \
%configure \
--disable-dhcpv6 \
--with-srv-lease-file=%{_localstatedir}/lib/dhcpd/dhcpd.leases \
--with-cli-lease-file=%{_localstatedir}/lib/dhclient/dhclient.leases \
--with-srv-pid-file=%{_localstatedir}/run/dhcpd.pid \
--with-cli-pid-file=%{_localstatedir}/run/dhclient.pid \
--with-relay-pid-file=%{_localstatedir}/run/dhcrelay.pid
-
Regards,
Mamoru
--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Re: Why do we disable esd in libgnome?
Hello. 平天韩 wrote, at 02/01/2009 04:16 PM +9:00: hi Great list, I just find that the libgnome-2.24.1-7.fc10 has been disabled esd when it is built. This has caused the gnome_sound_play() doesn't work and some package such as stardict cannot play sound. Why should we disable esd in libgnome? Could we enable it? Thanks. Actually we were wondering why stardict cannot play sound (althogh I don't use stardict), so your comments are appreciated. If you are interested, please visit: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=475904 Regards, Mamoru -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Re: [Fedora-legal-list] shipping icons possibly trademarked
Tom spot Callaway wrote, at 01/15/2009 04:34 AM +9:00: On Thu, 2009-01-15 at 01:31 +0900, Mamoru Tasaka wrote: I would appreciate it if you would check if these icons can be included in Fedora srpm and installed with binary rpms. If not I can simply remove these icons from cairo-dock tarball. These icons need to be removed. ~spot Done on the latest Fedora CVS, will be pushed on rawhide after next. Thank you. Mamoru ___ Fedora-legal-list mailing list Fedora-legal-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legal-list
Re: Problem removing: fmt-ptrn-java-1.3.17-1.fc9.i386
Daniel B. Thurman wrote, at 01/07/2009 12:27 AM +9:00: I was receiving email log notices that there was a problem with removing fmt-ptrn-java-1.3.17-1.fc9.i386, # rpm -e fmt-ptrn-java-1.3.17-1.fc9.i386 /sbin/ldconfig: relative path `1' used to build cache error: %postun(fmt-ptrn-java-1.3.17-1.fc9.i386) scriptlet failed, exit status 1 Three strikes, and I am out! So, how can I get rid of this package? Thanks! Dan This behavior seems fixed by bug 448267, but for your case try $ rpm -e --noscripts fmt-ptrn-java Regards, Mamoru -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Re: mjpegtools?
Ed Greshko wrote, at 12/15/2008 12:09 PM +9:00: Ed Greshko wrote: Gene Heskett wrote: I'd think so, but it cannot seem to accept that I have at least two complete. from the src trees of libquicktime.so.0 installed: [r...@coyote rpms]# rpm -Uvh mjpegtools-1.9.0-17_rc3.fc8.i386.rpm warning: mjpegtools-1.9.0-17_rc3.fc8.i386.rpm: Header V4 DSA signature: NOKEY, key ID 66534c2b error: Failed dependencies: libquicktime.so.0 is needed by mjpegtools-1.9.0-17_rc3.fc8.i386 [r...@coyote rpms]# locate libquicktime.so /opt/gmerlin/lib/libquicktime.so /opt/gmerlin/lib/libquicktime.so.0 /opt/gmerlin/lib/libquicktime.so.0.0.0 snip [r...@coyote rpms]# ln -s /usr/local/lib/libquicktime.so.0.0.0 /usr/lib/libquicktime.so.0.0.0 [r...@coyote rpms]# ln -s /usr/local/lib/libquicktime.so.0 /usr/lib/libquicktime.so.0 [r...@coyote rpms]# ln -s /usr/local/lib/libquicktime.so /usr/lib/libquicktime.so [r...@coyote rpms]# rpm -Uvh mjpegtools-1.9.0-17_rc3.fc8.i386.rpm warning: mjpegtools-1.9.0-17_rc3.fc8.i386.rpm: Header V4 DSA signature: NOKEY, key ID 66534c2b error: Failed dependencies: libquicktime.so.0 is needed by mjpegtools-1.9.0-17_rc3.fc8.i386 [r...@coyote rpms]# locate libquicktime.pc /opt/gmerlin/lib/pkgconfig/libquicktime.pc snip [r...@coyote rpms]# ln -s /usr/local/lib/pkgconfig/libquicktime.pc /usr/lib/pkgconfig/libquicktime.pc [r...@coyote rpms]# rpm -Uvh mjpegtools-1.9.0-17_rc3.fc8.i386.rpm warning: mjpegtools-1.9.0-17_rc3.fc8.i386.rpm: Header V4 DSA signature: NOKEY, key ID 66534c2b error: Failed dependencies: libquicktime.so.0 is needed by mjpegtools-1.9.0-17_rc3.fc8.i386 So how do I convince it, or should I just --force --nodeps it? Thanks Ed. Is /usr/local/lib in your /etc/ld.so.conf? Have you run ldconfig after your changes? When the rpm can find a dependency I've not found --force --nodeps to be very helpful. Of course my fingers meant can't find a dependency... :-) rpm cannot find dependencies if the needed libraries are not registered in rpm database, even if the libraries surely exist on your local disk. (so, libraries installed by yourself by configure - make - make install or so are not registered in rpm database and rpm simply ignores them) running ldconfig does not help. By the way mjpegtools is in rpmfusion [1] so just following [2] and yum install mjpegtools will probably install mjpegtools correctly. [1] http://download1.rpmfusion.org/free/fedora/updates/8/i386/repoview/M.group.html [2] http://rpmfusion.org/Configuration Mamoru -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Re: What is Judy?
Robert Moskowitz wrote, at 12/11/2008 12:14 AM +9:00: I am trying to build Miredo 1.1.5 (http://www.remlab.net/miredo/devel.shtml.en) I have followed the rpmbuild instructions from: http://www.owlriver.com/tips/non-root/ (after all, I am principally a Centos person, and know where to find out htings about Centos and figured this will not be different in F10), and have the miredo source in ~/build/miredo-1.1.5. I run ./configure (as the INSTALL text file tells me to do) and get the error: checking for Judy.h usablity... no checking for Judy.h presence... no checking for Judy.h... no configure: WARING: If you don't care about scalability, re-run configure with ' --without-Judy'. configure: error: Required Judy dynamic arrays library missing. Judy is https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=465897 By the way miredo is: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=437626 Mamoru -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
rpms/pango/devel pango.spec,1.149,1.150
Author: mtasaka
Update of /cvs/extras/rpms/pango/devel
In directory cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com:/tmp/cvs-serv14205
Modified Files:
pango.spec
Log Message:
* Sun Dec 7 2008 Mamoru Tasaka [EMAIL PROTECTED] - 1.22.3-2
- Rebuild for pkgconfig provides
Index: pango.spec
===
RCS file: /cvs/extras/rpms/pango/devel/pango.spec,v
retrieving revision 1.149
retrieving revision 1.150
diff -u -r1.149 -r1.150
--- pango.spec 25 Nov 2008 03:40:42 - 1.149
+++ pango.spec 7 Dec 2008 04:27:21 - 1.150
@@ -9,7 +9,7 @@
Summary: System for layout and rendering of internationalized text
Name: pango
Version: 1.22.3
-Release: 1%{?dist}
+Release: 2%{?dist}
License: LGPLv2+
Group: System Environment/Libraries
Source: http://download.gnome.org/sources/pango/1.22/pango-%{version}.tar.bz2
@@ -224,6 +224,9 @@
%changelog
+* Sun Dec 7 2008 Mamoru Tasaka [EMAIL PROTECTED] - 1.22.3-2
+- Rebuild for pkgconfig provides
+
* Mon Nov 24 2008 Matthias Clasen [EMAIL PROTECTED] - 1.22.3-1
- U[date to 1.22.3
___
Fedora-fonts-bugs-list mailing list
Fedora-fonts-bugs-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-bugs-list
rpms/monafont/devel monafont.spec,1.3,1.4
Author: mtasaka
Update of /cvs/extras/rpms/monafont/devel
In directory cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com:/tmp/cvs-serv9569
Modified Files:
monafont.spec
Log Message:
rebuild against new VLGothic
Index: monafont.spec
===
RCS file: /cvs/extras/rpms/monafont/devel/monafont.spec,v
retrieving revision 1.3
retrieving revision 1.4
diff -u -r1.3 -r1.4
--- monafont.spec 3 Dec 2008 14:05:22 - 1.3
+++ monafont.spec 5 Dec 2008 04:38:15 - 1.4
@@ -11,7 +11,7 @@
%definefontdir_ttf_v %{fontbasedir}/%{name_ttf_v}
%definesazanami_ver20040629
-%definevlgothic_ver20081029
+%definevlgothic_ver20081203
%definecatalog_dir %{_sysconfdir}/X11/fontpath.d
@@ -25,7 +25,7 @@
Name: %{archivename}
Version: 2.90
-Release: 5%{?dist}.1
+Release: 5%{?dist}.2
Summary: Japanese font for text arts
# monafont itself is under public domain
@@ -231,6 +231,9 @@
%changelog
+* Fri Dec 5 2008 Mamoru Tasaka [EMAIL PROTECTED]
+- rebuild for new VLGothic
+
* Wed Dec 3 2008 Mamoru Tasaka [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- rebuild for new VLGothic
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
Fedora-perl-devel-list mailing list
Fedora-perl-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-perl-devel-list
rpms/monafont/F-10 monafont.spec,1.3,1.4
Author: mtasaka
Update of /cvs/extras/rpms/monafont/F-10
In directory cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com:/tmp/cvs-serv13205/F-10
Modified Files:
monafont.spec
Log Message:
Rebuild on devel for new VLGothic, and cleanups
Index: monafont.spec
===
RCS file: /cvs/extras/rpms/monafont/F-10/monafont.spec,v
retrieving revision 1.3
retrieving revision 1.4
diff -u -r1.3 -r1.4
--- monafont.spec 23 Nov 2008 15:38:31 - 1.3
+++ monafont.spec 3 Dec 2008 14:05:21 - 1.4
@@ -10,22 +10,8 @@
%definefontdir_ttf_s %{fontbasedir}/%{name_ttf_s}
%definefontdir_ttf_v %{fontbasedir}/%{name_ttf_v}
-%if 0%{?fedora} = 11
-%definesazanami_ver20040629
-%definevlgothic_ver20080908
-%endif
-%if 0%{?fedora} == 10
-%definesazanami_ver20040629
-%definevlgothic_ver20081029
-%endif
-%if 0%{?fedora} == 9
%definesazanami_ver20040629
%definevlgothic_ver20081029
-%endif
-%if 0%{?fedora} = 8
-%definesazanami_ver20040629
-%definevlgothic_ver20081029
-%endif
%definecatalog_dir %{_sysconfdir}/X11/fontpath.d
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
Fedora-perl-devel-list mailing list
Fedora-perl-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-perl-devel-list
rpms/monafont/devel monafont.spec,1.2,1.3
Author: mtasaka
Update of /cvs/extras/rpms/monafont/devel
In directory cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com:/tmp/cvs-serv13205/devel
Modified Files:
monafont.spec
Log Message:
Rebuild on devel for new VLGothic, and cleanups
Index: monafont.spec
===
RCS file: /cvs/extras/rpms/monafont/devel/monafont.spec,v
retrieving revision 1.2
retrieving revision 1.3
diff -u -r1.2 -r1.3
--- monafont.spec 9 Sep 2008 05:14:25 - 1.2
+++ monafont.spec 3 Dec 2008 14:05:22 - 1.3
@@ -10,18 +10,8 @@
%definefontdir_ttf_s %{fontbasedir}/%{name_ttf_s}
%definefontdir_ttf_v %{fontbasedir}/%{name_ttf_v}
-%if 0%{?fedora} = 10
%definesazanami_ver20040629
-%definevlgothic_ver20080908
-%endif
-%if 0%{?fedora} == 9
-%definesazanami_ver20040629
-%definevlgothic_ver20071215
-%endif
-%if 0%{?fedora} = 8
-%definesazanami_ver20040629
-%definevlgothic_ver20071215
-%endif
+%definevlgothic_ver20081029
%definecatalog_dir %{_sysconfdir}/X11/fontpath.d
@@ -35,7 +25,7 @@
Name: %{archivename}
Version: 2.90
-Release: 5%{?dist}
+Release: 5%{?dist}.1
Summary: Japanese font for text arts
# monafont itself is under public domain
@@ -241,6 +231,9 @@
%changelog
+* Wed Dec 3 2008 Mamoru Tasaka [EMAIL PROTECTED]
+- rebuild for new VLGothic
+
* Tue Sep 9 2008 Mamoru Tasaka [EMAIL PROTECTED] - 2.90-5
- F-10: Rebuild for new VLGothic
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
Fedora-perl-devel-list mailing list
Fedora-perl-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-perl-devel-list
rpms/monafont/F-8 monafont.spec,1.2,1.3
Author: mtasaka
Update of /cvs/extras/rpms/monafont/F-8
In directory cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com:/tmp/cvs-serv13205/F-8
Modified Files:
monafont.spec
Log Message:
Rebuild on devel for new VLGothic, and cleanups
Index: monafont.spec
===
RCS file: /cvs/extras/rpms/monafont/F-8/monafont.spec,v
retrieving revision 1.2
retrieving revision 1.3
diff -u -r1.2 -r1.3
--- monafont.spec 13 Nov 2008 16:11:55 - 1.2
+++ monafont.spec 3 Dec 2008 14:05:21 - 1.3
@@ -10,18 +10,8 @@
%definefontdir_ttf_s %{fontbasedir}/%{name_ttf_s}
%definefontdir_ttf_v %{fontbasedir}/%{name_ttf_v}
-%if 0%{?fedora} = 10
-%definesazanami_ver20040629
-%definevlgothic_ver20080624
-%endif
-%if 0%{?fedora} == 9
%definesazanami_ver20040629
%definevlgothic_ver20081029
-%endif
-%if 0%{?fedora} = 8
-%definesazanami_ver20040629
-%definevlgothic_ver20081029
-%endif
%definecatalog_dir %{_sysconfdir}/X11/fontpath.d
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
Fedora-perl-devel-list mailing list
Fedora-perl-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-perl-devel-list
rpms/monafont/F-9 monafont.spec,1.2,1.3
Author: mtasaka
Update of /cvs/extras/rpms/monafont/F-9
In directory cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com:/tmp/cvs-serv13205/F-9
Modified Files:
monafont.spec
Log Message:
Rebuild on devel for new VLGothic, and cleanups
Index: monafont.spec
===
RCS file: /cvs/extras/rpms/monafont/F-9/monafont.spec,v
retrieving revision 1.2
retrieving revision 1.3
diff -u -r1.2 -r1.3
--- monafont.spec 13 Nov 2008 16:11:56 - 1.2
+++ monafont.spec 3 Dec 2008 14:05:22 - 1.3
@@ -10,18 +10,8 @@
%definefontdir_ttf_s %{fontbasedir}/%{name_ttf_s}
%definefontdir_ttf_v %{fontbasedir}/%{name_ttf_v}
-%if 0%{?fedora} = 10
-%definesazanami_ver20040629
-%definevlgothic_ver20080624
-%endif
-%if 0%{?fedora} == 9
%definesazanami_ver20040629
%definevlgothic_ver20081029
-%endif
-%if 0%{?fedora} = 8
-%definesazanami_ver20040629
-%definevlgothic_ver20081029
-%endif
%definecatalog_dir %{_sysconfdir}/X11/fontpath.d
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
Fedora-perl-devel-list mailing list
Fedora-perl-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-perl-devel-list
rpms/monafont/F-10 monafont.spec,1.2,1.3
Author: mtasaka
Update of /cvs/extras/rpms/monafont/F-10
In directory cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com:/tmp/cvs-serv10871
Modified Files:
monafont.spec
Log Message:
* Mon Nov 24 2008 Mamoru Tasaka [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- F-10: Rebuild for new VLGothic
Index: monafont.spec
===
RCS file: /cvs/extras/rpms/monafont/F-10/monafont.spec,v
retrieving revision 1.2
retrieving revision 1.3
diff -u -r1.2 -r1.3
--- monafont.spec 9 Sep 2008 05:14:25 - 1.2
+++ monafont.spec 23 Nov 2008 15:38:31 - 1.3
@@ -10,17 +10,21 @@
%definefontdir_ttf_s %{fontbasedir}/%{name_ttf_s}
%definefontdir_ttf_v %{fontbasedir}/%{name_ttf_v}
-%if 0%{?fedora} = 10
+%if 0%{?fedora} = 11
%definesazanami_ver20040629
%definevlgothic_ver20080908
%endif
+%if 0%{?fedora} == 10
+%definesazanami_ver20040629
+%definevlgothic_ver20081029
+%endif
%if 0%{?fedora} == 9
%definesazanami_ver20040629
-%definevlgothic_ver20071215
+%definevlgothic_ver20081029
%endif
%if 0%{?fedora} = 8
%definesazanami_ver20040629
-%definevlgothic_ver20071215
+%definevlgothic_ver20081029
%endif
%definecatalog_dir %{_sysconfdir}/X11/fontpath.d
@@ -35,7 +39,7 @@
Name: %{archivename}
Version: 2.90
-Release: 5%{?dist}
+Release: 5%{?dist}.1
Summary: Japanese font for text arts
# monafont itself is under public domain
@@ -241,6 +245,9 @@
%changelog
+* Mon Nov 24 2008 Mamoru Tasaka [EMAIL PROTECTED]
+- F-10: Rebuild for new VLGothic
+
* Tue Sep 9 2008 Mamoru Tasaka [EMAIL PROTECTED] - 2.90-5
- F-10: Rebuild for new VLGothic
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
Fedora-perl-devel-list mailing list
Fedora-perl-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-perl-devel-list
rpms/monafont/F-8 monafont.spec,1.1,1.2
Author: mtasaka
Update of /cvs/extras/rpms/monafont/F-8
In directory cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com:/tmp/cvs-serv22417/F-8
Modified Files:
monafont.spec
Log Message:
F-8/9: rebuild against new VLGothic
Index: monafont.spec
===
RCS file: /cvs/extras/rpms/monafont/F-8/monafont.spec,v
retrieving revision 1.1
retrieving revision 1.2
diff -u -r1.1 -r1.2
--- monafont.spec 4 Aug 2008 20:06:03 - 1.1
+++ monafont.spec 13 Nov 2008 16:11:55 - 1.2
@@ -16,11 +16,11 @@
%endif
%if 0%{?fedora} == 9
%definesazanami_ver20040629
-%definevlgothic_ver20071215
+%definevlgothic_ver20081029
%endif
%if 0%{?fedora} = 8
%definesazanami_ver20040629
-%definevlgothic_ver20071215
+%definevlgothic_ver20081029
%endif
%definecatalog_dir %{_sysconfdir}/X11/fontpath.d
@@ -35,7 +35,7 @@
Name: %{archivename}
Version: 2.90
-Release: 4%{?dist}
+Release: 4%{?dist}.1
Summary: Japanese font for text arts
# monafont itself is under public domain
@@ -241,6 +241,9 @@
%changelog
+* Fri Nov 14 2008 Mamoru Tasaka [EMAIL PROTECTED]
+- Rebuild against new VLGothic
+
* Tue Aug 5 2008 Mamoru Tasaka [EMAIL PROTECTED] - 2.90-4
- Bump
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
Fedora-perl-devel-list mailing list
Fedora-perl-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-perl-devel-list
rpms/monafont/F-9 monafont.spec,1.1,1.2
Author: mtasaka
Update of /cvs/extras/rpms/monafont/F-9
In directory cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com:/tmp/cvs-serv22417/F-9
Modified Files:
monafont.spec
Log Message:
F-8/9: rebuild against new VLGothic
Index: monafont.spec
===
RCS file: /cvs/extras/rpms/monafont/F-9/monafont.spec,v
retrieving revision 1.1
retrieving revision 1.2
diff -u -r1.1 -r1.2
--- monafont.spec 4 Aug 2008 20:06:03 - 1.1
+++ monafont.spec 13 Nov 2008 16:11:56 - 1.2
@@ -16,11 +16,11 @@
%endif
%if 0%{?fedora} == 9
%definesazanami_ver20040629
-%definevlgothic_ver20071215
+%definevlgothic_ver20081029
%endif
%if 0%{?fedora} = 8
%definesazanami_ver20040629
-%definevlgothic_ver20071215
+%definevlgothic_ver20081029
%endif
%definecatalog_dir %{_sysconfdir}/X11/fontpath.d
@@ -35,7 +35,7 @@
Name: %{archivename}
Version: 2.90
-Release: 4%{?dist}
+Release: 4%{?dist}.1
Summary: Japanese font for text arts
# monafont itself is under public domain
@@ -241,6 +241,9 @@
%changelog
+* Fri Nov 14 2008 Mamoru Tasaka [EMAIL PROTECTED]
+- Rebuild against new VLGothic
+
* Tue Aug 5 2008 Mamoru Tasaka [EMAIL PROTECTED] - 2.90-4
- Bump
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
Fedora-perl-devel-list mailing list
Fedora-perl-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-perl-devel-list
Re: pdftk - f9 f10
Frank Cox wrote, at 11/05/2008 09:41 AM +9:00: Will itext also become officially available for F9? Currently no. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/packages/name/itext https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=465511 If you want itext on F-9, please file a RFE bug against itext. Will pdftk become officially available for F9 and F10? No until new maintainer appears (and the new maintainer submits a review request for pdftk). If you are interested in maintaining pdftk on Fedora, please visit: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Join Regards, Mamoru -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Re: [Fedora-legal-list] Version 1 of the CeCILL license
Jason L Tibbitts III wrote, at 10/15/2008 12:19 PM +9:00: Remember just last week when it was mentioned that folks would look at CeCILL v1 when someone submitted something under that license? Well, there was already something in the review queue and tonight I happened upon it: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=465750 R-GeneR, a specific bit of genetics software, seems to be under CeCILL v1 as evidenced by the copying file, which begins with FREE SOFTWARE LICENSING AGREEMENT CeCILL and ends with Version 1 of 06/21/2004. Of specific interest here is GPL (v2) compatibility, because R is GPLv2 and R plugins are linked with both libR and libreadline. - J As far as I checked the CeCILLv1, this is GPL compatible, because of the section 5.3.4. Mamoru ___ Fedora-legal-list mailing list Fedora-legal-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legal-list
Re: Yum trying to update OpenOffice 2.4 with older 2.3 version on F8
Hello. Leland C. Scott wrote, at 09/01/2008 03:11 PM +9:00: I installed OpenOffice version 2.4.1 on a Fedora 8 system. The package installed OK. The problem is now when I do a yum update at the command line as root yum tries to update the installed OpenOffice packages with the older 2.3 versions. I did the typical yum clean all and the other options to dump the metadata etc. files. I also did an rpm rebuild database too. Yum still tries to overwrite the newer version with the older distro specific ones. This is rather a common question about Fedora openoffice: https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-list/2008-August/msg01660.html Regards, Mamoru -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Re: where to request a newer package version?
Robert P. J. Day wrote, at 08/14/2008 12:24 AM +9:00: is there a specific bugzilla page where one requests the RPMifying of the newer version of an existing package? thanks. rday -- Please go to https://bugzilla.redhat.com/index.cgi and file a new bug with the Component you want to upgrade and with the Summary RFE: upgrade foo to version X or so. Mamoru -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: xscreensaver on dual-monitor setup
Hello: oleksandr korneta wrote, at 07/30/2008 01:58 PM +9:00: Hello, I have a Twin-view configuration setup with the LCD monitor and TV. It used to be that xscreensaver treated those independently and launched an individual whatever_the_screensaver_was_selected on each of them. After the recent update of xscreensaver-gl-extras-gss-5.06-2.fc8 and xscreensaver-gl-extras-5.06-2.fc8 my setup is treated as one common area and a single screensaver is launched in the middle. It looks kinda ugly, because of the significantly different resolution between the display devices. So I am wondering whether the current behavior this is a bug or feature and is it possible to turn back the old behavior without rolling back to the previous version? Maybe some command-line parameter? It may be that I cannot solve your problem, however would you tell me what xscreensaver -verbose say (after once you stop xscreensaver by xscreensaver-command -exit)? Mamoru -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: xscreensaver on dual-monitor setup
oleksandr korneta wrote, at 07/30/2008 09:52 PM +9:00: on 07/30/2008 03:01 AM Mamoru Tasaka wrote: Mamoru Tasaka wrote, at 07/30/2008 04:00 PM +9:00: Hello: oleksandr korneta wrote, at 07/30/2008 01:58 PM +9:00: Hello, I have a Twin-view configuration setup with the LCD monitor and TV. It used to be that xscreensaver treated those independently and launched an individual whatever_the_screensaver_was_selected on each of them. After the recent update of xscreensaver-gl-extras-gss-5.06-2.fc8 and xscreensaver-gl-extras-5.06-2.fc8 my setup is treated as one common area and a single screensaver is launched in the middle. It looks kinda ugly, because of the significantly different resolution between the display devices. So I am wondering whether the current behavior this is a bug or feature and is it possible to turn back the old behavior without rolling back to the previous version? Maybe some command-line parameter? It may be that I cannot solve your problem, however would you tell me what xscreensaver -verbose say (after once you stop xscreensaver by xscreensaver-command -exit)? here you are: xscreensaver 5.06, copyright (c) 1991-2008 by Jamie Zawinski [EMAIL PROTECTED]. xscreensaver: 08:46:46: running as sashko/users (501/100) xscreensaver: 08:46:46: in process 9767. xscreensaver: 08:46:46: running on display :0.0 xscreensaver: 08:46:46: vendor is The X.Org Foundation, 1030. xscreensaver: 08:46:46: useful extensions: xscreensaver: 08:46:46: MIT Screen-Saver (disabled at compile time) xscreensaver: 08:46:46: Shared Memory xscreensaver: 08:46:46: Double-Buffering xscreensaver: 08:46:46: Power Management xscreensaver: 08:46:46: GLX xscreensaver: 08:46:46: XF86 Video-Mode xscreensaver: 08:46:46: Xinerama xscreensaver: 08:46:46: Resize-and-Rotate xscreensaver: 08:46:46: screen 0 non-colormapped depths: 0 24. xscreensaver: 08:46:46: screens in use: 1 xscreensaver: 08:46:46:0/0: 2480x1050+0+0 (default) xscreensaver: 08:46:46: selecting RANDR events xscreensaver: 08:46:46: consulting /proc/interrupts for keyboard activity. xscreensaver: 08:46:46: 0: visual 0x21 (TrueColor, depth: 24, cmap: default) xscreensaver: 08:46:46: 0: saver window is 0x81. xscreensaver: 08:46:46: selecting events on extant windows... done. xscreensaver: 08:46:46: awaiting idleness. Or file a bug against xscreensaver so that we can discuss there. it is my understanding that filing a bug in this case means sending the message to [EMAIL PROTECTED], or do you mean fedora's bugtracker? Please File on Fedora bugzilla. I will add jwz as CC member. Mamoru -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: Where is Kdict?
Paul Smith wrote, at 07/21/2008 09:58 PM +9:00: On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 3:40 AM, Mamoru Tasaka [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Where is Kdict? I have tried # yum search kdict [...] Warning: No matches found for: kdict No Matches found # Any ideas? Try # yum whatprovides \*kdict Thanks, Mamoru (and John), but nothing relevant is returned with the above command. # means you have to do this as root Mamoru -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: Where is Kdict?
Patrick O'Callaghan wrote, at 07/22/2008 12:45 AM +9:00: On Mon, 2008-07-21 at 23:06 +0900, Mamoru Tasaka wrote: Paul Smith wrote, at 07/21/2008 09:58 PM +9:00: On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 3:40 AM, Mamoru Tasaka [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Where is Kdict? I have tried # yum search kdict [...] Warning: No matches found for: kdict No Matches found # Any ideas? Try # yum whatprovides \*kdict Thanks, Mamoru (and John), but nothing relevant is returned with the above command. # means you have to do this as root In this case it doesn't matter. 'yum' will resolve 'whatprovides' without special privileges. poc You have to download yum repository metadata beforehand so executing this as root is mandatory. You can try what happens if you execute rm -rf /var/cache/yum/* beforehand. Mamoru -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: Where is Kdict?
Paul Smith wrote, at 07/21/2008 02:26 AM +9:00: Dear All, Where is Kdict? I have tried # yum search kdict [...] Warning: No matches found for: kdict No Matches found # Any ideas? Thanks in advance, Paul Try # yum whatprovides \*kdict Regards, Mamoru -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: Where can I get the old kernels ?
Wong Kwok-hon wrote, at 07/03/2008 06:34 PM +9:00: Hello, Where can I get the old kernels of FC8 ? I feel 2.6.25 is unstable because my computer hasn't changed but hang frequenlty after this version installed. so I need to downgrade to 2.6.24. Thanks! Please check this thread: http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-list/2008-June/msg03202.html Mamoru -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: how to install 2.6.24 kernel?
François Patte wrote, at 06/26/2008 05:15 PM +9:00: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Bonjour, I have/there is a problem with kernel 2.6.25 (see my previous post) errors messages with usb port (cannot enumerate ush port on port 8...) it is impossible to use fglrx driver I want to come back to the 2.6.24 kernel: where can I find it? Visit http://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org/packages/kernel/ Regards, Mamoru -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Re: RPM creation question
Clint Dilks wrote, at 06/12/2008 03:45 PM +9:00:
Hi,
Is there any nice way in a .spec file to tell rpmbuild not to call
brp-java-repack-jars? Some Web Searching indicates that most people
just hack the script. Is there a better way ?
$ rpm --showrc shows %__os_install_post calls
/usr/lib/rpm/redhat/brp-java-repack-jars
if %__jar_repack macro is not defined. So just adding
%define __jar_repack %{nil}
at the top of the needed spec file or adding
%__jar_repack %{nil}
on ~/.rpmmacros should do what you want.
Regards,
Mamoru
--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
