EPEL epel beta report: 20140221 changes

2014-02-21 Thread EPEL Beta Report
Compose started at Fri Feb 21 08:15:04 UTC 2014 Broken deps for x86_64 -- 2ping-2.0-2.el7.noarch requires perl(Digest::CRC) RemoteBox-1.7-1.el7.noarch requires rdesktop RemoteBox-1.7-1.el7.noarch requires perl-Gtk2

Re: EPEL Issue with koji?

2014-02-21 Thread Jeff Sheltren
On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 7:47 PM, Dave Johansen davejohan...@gmail.comwrote: Yes, waiting did work for that issue ( https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2014-February/195156.html), but this is another issue and appears to that the building of the source .rpm isn't working properly

Re: EPEL Issue with koji?

2014-02-21 Thread Jeff Sheltren
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 7:28 AM, Dave Johansen davejohan...@gmail.comwrote: Doh! The original email in this chain was a copy and paste/stupid user error on my part. No, I no longer get that issue with the llvm build and like Kevin pointed out, just waiting worked. But I sent two emails this

Re: EPEL Issue with koji?

2014-02-21 Thread Kevin Fenzi
On Fri, 21 Feb 2014 08:28:24 -0700 Dave Johansen davejohan...@gmail.com wrote: Doh! The original email in this chain was a copy and paste/stupid user error on my part. No, I no longer get that issue with the llvm build and like Kevin pointed out, just waiting worked. But I sent two emails

EPEL Fedora 5 updates-testing report

2014-02-21 Thread updates
The following Fedora EPEL 5 Security updates need testing: Age URL 671 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2012-5630/bugzilla-3.2.10-5.el5 161 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2013-11560/fail2ban-0.8.10-4.el5 125

EPEL Fedora 6 updates-testing report

2014-02-21 Thread updates
The following Fedora EPEL 6 Security updates need testing: Age URL 671 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2012-5620/bugzilla-3.4.14-2.el6 100 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2013-12079/bip-0.8.9-1.el6 24

Re: Fwd: [Rpm-maint] Heads up: Weak and rich dependencies in RPM

2014-02-21 Thread Florian Festi
On 02/20/2014 11:50 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: On Thu, 2014-02-20 at 14:44 +, Colin Walters wrote: On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 7:27 AM, Florian Festi ffe...@redhat.com wrote: We are currently working on adding weak and rich dependencies to upstream RPM. There are basically two parts: Is

[Base] Base Design WG agenda meeting 21. Feb 2014 15:00 UTC on #fedora-meeting

2014-02-21 Thread Phil Knirsch
Agenda: - Discussion of Workstation Tech Spec[1][2] and define action items for Base from it - Open Floor Thanks regards, Phil [1] https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/desktop/2014-February/009136.html [2] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Workstation/Technical_Specification --

Package review: sensible-utils (dependency needed by devscript)

2014-02-21 Thread Sandro Mani
Hi, devscript currently misses a depdendency on sensible-utils, which I've now packaged and submitted for review: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1067917 The package is trivial. Happy to review in exchange. Thanks, Sandro -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: python-django update to Django-1.6

2014-02-21 Thread Stephen Gallagher
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 02/21/2014 02:48 AM, Matthias Runge wrote: On 02/20/2014 08:19 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote: Just to bring this thread back to life, we're getting to a point where support for Django 1.6 is becoming more and more necessary. Is there an ETA

Orphaned cleanfeed

2014-02-21 Thread Tomáš Smetana
Hello, the package cleanfeed is now orphaned. There are no comaintainers: Feel free to take it. Thanks and regards, -- Tomáš Smetana Platform Engineering, Red Hat -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct:

Re: python-django update to Django-1.6

2014-02-21 Thread John . Florian
From: sgall...@redhat.com Have we sorted out how exactly we want to build this in Fedora? I'm still in favor of killing off the python-django package in favor of python-django16 and python-django15. I too would much prefer this approach. For somebody like me who wants to maintain

[perl-HTTP-Tiny] 0.043 bump

2014-02-21 Thread Petr Pisar
commit 9677bdb741d0a59b026ec8e33e686e4840537790 Author: Petr Písař ppi...@redhat.com Date: Fri Feb 21 14:42:08 2014 +0100 0.043 bump perl-HTTP-Tiny.spec |5 - 1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) --- diff --git a/perl-HTTP-Tiny.spec b/perl-HTTP-Tiny.spec index

May I file 1000 bugs aka upstream test suite tracking

2014-02-21 Thread Alexander Todorov
Hi guys, (note: devel, packaging and test lists) previously I've done a little experiment and counted how many packages are likely to have upstream test suites and how many don't: http://atodorov.org/blog/2013/12/24/upstream-test-suite-status-of-fedora-20/ In general around 35% do have test

[Bug 1067879] perl-Module-Load-0.32 is available

2014-02-21 Thread bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1067879 Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Fixed In

Re: May I file 1000 bugs aka upstream test suite tracking

2014-02-21 Thread Richard W.M. Jones
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 04:22:42PM +0200, Alexander Todorov wrote: Hi guys, (note: devel, packaging and test lists) previously I've done a little experiment and counted how many packages are likely to have upstream test suites and how many don't:

Re: May I file 1000 bugs aka upstream test suite tracking

2014-02-21 Thread Stephen Gallagher
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 02/21/2014 09:22 AM, Alexander Todorov wrote: Hi guys, (note: devel, packaging and test lists) previously I've done a little experiment and counted how many packages are likely to have upstream test suites and how many don't:

[Bug 1067882] perl-WWW-Curl-4.16 is available

2014-02-21 Thread bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1067882 --- Comment #1 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- perl-WWW-Curl-4.16-1.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-WWW-Curl-4.16-1.fc20 -- You are receiving this mail

Re: May I file 1000 bugs aka upstream test suite tracking

2014-02-21 Thread Josh Boyer
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 9:30 AM, Stephen Gallagher sgall...@redhat.com wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 02/21/2014 09:22 AM, Alexander Todorov wrote: Hi guys, (note: devel, packaging and test lists) previously I've done a little experiment and counted how many packages

Re: May I file 1000 bugs aka upstream test suite tracking

2014-02-21 Thread Alexander Todorov
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 9:30 AM, Stephen Gallagher sgall...@redhat.com wrote: Please make sure to follow https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mass_bug_filing to the letter. If you do not, it will make life very difficult. Thanks, I'll take a look at it and follow it when it comes to mass filing of

Re: May I file 1000 bugs aka upstream test suite tracking

2014-02-21 Thread Daniel P. Berrange
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 09:38:56AM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote: On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 9:30 AM, Stephen Gallagher sgall...@redhat.com wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 02/21/2014 09:22 AM, Alexander Todorov wrote: Hi guys, (note: devel, packaging and test lists)

Re: [Fedora-packaging] May I file 1000 bugs aka upstream test suite tracking

2014-02-21 Thread Alexander Todorov
На 21.02.2014 16:27, Richard W.M. Jones написа: Is it correct that you're only going to be filing bugs when upstream tarballs already contain test suites, but they are just not enabled in the Fedora package? Hi Richard, I meant just the opposite. However I will also do what you suggest but

Re: May I file 1000 bugs aka upstream test suite tracking

2014-02-21 Thread Josh Boyer
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 9:50 AM, Daniel P. Berrange berra...@redhat.com wrote: On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 09:38:56AM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote: That being said, a lot of packages in Fedora are simply that: packaged upstreams. Many (most?) package maintainers are not developers of that package

Re: [Fedora-packaging] May I file 1000 bugs aka upstream test suite tracking

2014-02-21 Thread Stephen Gallagher
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 02/21/2014 09:51 AM, Alexander Todorov wrote: На 21.02.2014 16:27, Richard W.M. Jones написа: Is it correct that you're only going to be filing bugs when upstream tarballs already contain test suites, but they are just not enabled in the Fedora

Re: [Fedora-packaging] May I file 1000 bugs aka upstream test suite tracking

2014-02-21 Thread Tom Hughes
On 21/02/14 14:51, Alexander Todorov wrote: I want to track which packages *DO NOT* have any tests and later be able to focus on creating them (be it working with volunteers, GSoC participants or whoever is willing to step up to this task). Why would you file a bug in the Fedora bug tracker

Re: [Fedora-packaging] May I file 1000 bugs aka upstream test suite tracking

2014-02-21 Thread Matthias Clasen
On Fri, 2014-02-21 at 16:51 +0200, Alexander Todorov wrote: I want to track which packages *DO NOT* have any tests and later be able to focus on creating them (be it working with volunteers, GSoC participants or whoever is willing to step up to this task). In that case, I suggest simply

Re: [Fedora-packaging] May I file 1000 bugs aka upstream test suite tracking

2014-02-21 Thread Daniel P. Berrange
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 04:22:42PM +0200, Alexander Todorov wrote: Hi guys, (note: devel, packaging and test lists) previously I've done a little experiment and counted how many packages are likely to have upstream test suites and how many don't:

Re: [Fedora-packaging] May I file 1000 bugs aka upstream test suite tracking

2014-02-21 Thread Alexander Todorov
На 21.02.2014 16:54, Stephen Gallagher написа: Please do not file hundreds of bugs that will be closed WONTFIX. It's a waste of everyone's time. Hi Stephen, how do you propose to track this then? I don't think a wiki page is more comfortable than Bugzilla. And why the heck would you CLOSE

Re: [Fedora-packaging] May I file 1000 bugs aka upstream test suite tracking

2014-02-21 Thread Daniel P. Berrange
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 02:53:55PM +, Tom Hughes wrote: On 21/02/14 14:51, Alexander Todorov wrote: I want to track which packages *DO NOT* have any tests and later be able to focus on creating them (be it working with volunteers, GSoC participants or whoever is willing to step up to

Re: [Fedora-packaging] May I file 1000 bugs aka upstream test suite tracking

2014-02-21 Thread Aleksandar Kurtakov
- Original Message - From: Alexander Todorov atodo...@redhat.com To: Discussion of RPM packaging standards and practices for Fedora packag...@lists.fedoraproject.org, Development discussions related to Fedora devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Cc: For testing and quality assurance of

Re: [Fedora-packaging] May I file 1000 bugs aka upstream test suite tracking

2014-02-21 Thread Tom Hughes
On 21/02/14 14:57, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 02:53:55PM +, Tom Hughes wrote: On 21/02/14 14:51, Alexander Todorov wrote: I want to track which packages *DO NOT* have any tests and later be able to focus on creating them (be it working with volunteers, GSoC

Re: [Fedora-packaging] May I file 1000 bugs aka upstream test suite tracking

2014-02-21 Thread Josh Boyer
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 9:56 AM, Alexander Todorov atodo...@redhat.com wrote: На 21.02.2014 16:54, Stephen Gallagher написа: Please do not file hundreds of bugs that will be closed WONTFIX. It's a waste of everyone's time. Hi Stephen, how do you propose to track this then? I don't think a

Re: [Fedora-packaging] May I file 1000 bugs aka upstream test suite tracking

2014-02-21 Thread Alexander Todorov
На 21.02.2014 16:53, Tom Hughes написа: Why would you file a bug in the Fedora bug tracker when the package has no test suite upstream? That makes no sense - if the upstream package has no tests then the bug belongs upstream not in Fedora. Same reason you file kernel bugs in

Re: [Fedora-packaging] May I file 1000 bugs aka upstream test suite tracking

2014-02-21 Thread Alexander Todorov
На 21.02.2014 16:55, Daniel P. Berrange написа: If you have code that can fairly reliably detect whether a test suite exists in the source tar.gz, then I think you would be justified in filing bugs for spec files which have not enabled the test suite. At present I'm aware of 11 different

Re: May I file 1000 bugs aka upstream test suite tracking

2014-02-21 Thread Aleksandar Kurtakov
- Original Message - From: Josh Boyer jwbo...@fedoraproject.org To: Daniel P. Berrange berra...@redhat.com, Development discussions related to Fedora devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Sent: Friday, February 21, 2014 4:53:03 PM Subject: Re: May I file 1000 bugs aka upstream test suite

Re: [Fedora-packaging] May I file 1000 bugs aka upstream test suite tracking

2014-02-21 Thread Ralf Corsepius
On 02/21/2014 03:51 PM, Alexander Todorov wrote: На 21.02.2014 16:27, Richard W.M. Jones написа: Is it correct that you're only going to be filing bugs when upstream tarballs already contain test suites, but they are just not enabled in the Fedora package? Hi Richard, I meant just the

Re: [Fedora-packaging] May I file 1000 bugs aka upstream test suite tracking

2014-02-21 Thread Reindl Harald
Am 21.02.2014 15:51, schrieb Alexander Todorov: На 21.02.2014 16:27, Richard W.M. Jones написа: Is it correct that you're only going to be filing bugs when upstream tarballs already contain test suites, but they are just not enabled in the Fedora package? I want to track which packages

Re: [Fedora-packaging] May I file 1000 bugs aka upstream test suite tracking

2014-02-21 Thread Alexander Todorov
На 21.02.2014 16:58, Tom Hughes написа: On 21/02/14 14:57, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 02:53:55PM +, Tom Hughes wrote: On 21/02/14 14:51, Alexander Todorov wrote: I want to track which packages *DO NOT* have any tests and later be able to focus on creating them (be

Re: May I file 1000 bugs aka upstream test suite tracking

2014-02-21 Thread Ralf Corsepius
On 02/21/2014 03:53 PM, Josh Boyer wrote: On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 9:50 AM, Daniel P. Berrange berra...@redhat.com wrote: If the maintainer is including any non-trivial patches that I think that enabling %check should almost be mandatory to ensure they are not causing regressions through their

Re: May I file 1000 bugs aka upstream test suite tracking

2014-02-21 Thread Alexander Todorov
Looks like reporting missing test suites in Bugzilla is not accepted. I guess it's just me who prefers Bugzilla compared to other media. I *will use the Wiki* for this. On the topic of tests not executed in %check I *will use Bugzilla* but Alexander Kurtakov brings up another angle - tests

Re: [Fedora-packaging] May I file 1000 bugs aka upstream test suite tracking

2014-02-21 Thread Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski
On Friday, 21 February 2014 at 16:08, Alexander Todorov wrote: [...] Guys I can do both. 1) Report packages which *have* test suites but they are *not* executed in %check 2) Report packages which *don't* have any test suites at all. 1) is easy but I'm more interested in 2) Could you

Re: May I file 1000 bugs aka upstream test suite tracking

2014-02-21 Thread Miroslav Lichvar
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 02:50:12PM +, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 09:38:56AM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote: Personally, I don't think %check is a good idea at all. I think the benefit depends on the level of patching the Fedora maintainer is doing. If they are shipping

Re: [Fedora-packaging] May I file 1000 bugs aka upstream test suite tracking

2014-02-21 Thread Alexander Todorov
На 21.02.2014 17:16, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski написа: On Friday, 21 February 2014 at 16:08, Alexander Todorov wrote: [...] Guys I can do both. 1) Report packages which *have* test suites but they are *not* executed in %check 2) Report packages which *don't* have any test suites at all.

Re: May I file 1000 bugs aka upstream test suite tracking

2014-02-21 Thread Daniel P. Berrange
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 04:19:29PM +0100, Miroslav Lichvar wrote: On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 02:50:12PM +, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 09:38:56AM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote: Personally, I don't think %check is a good idea at all. I think the benefit depends on the

Re: EPEL Issue with koji?

2014-02-21 Thread Dave Johansen
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 7:09 AM, Jeff Sheltren j...@tag1consulting.comwrote: On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 7:47 PM, Dave Johansen davejohan...@gmail.comwrote: Yes, waiting did work for that issue ( https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2014-February/195156.html), but this is another

Re: python-django update to Django-1.6

2014-02-21 Thread Simo Sorce
On Fri, 2014-02-21 at 08:40 -0500, john.flor...@dart.biz wrote: From: sgall...@redhat.com Have we sorted out how exactly we want to build this in Fedora? I'm still in favor of killing off the python-django package in favor of python-django16 and python-django15. I too would much

Re: May I file 1000 bugs aka upstream test suite tracking

2014-02-21 Thread Eric Sandeen
On 2/21/14, 9:25 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 04:19:29PM +0100, Miroslav Lichvar wrote: On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 02:50:12PM +, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 09:38:56AM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote: Personally, I don't think %check is a good idea at

[Base] Fedora Base Design Working Group (2014-02-21) meeting minutes and logs

2014-02-21 Thread Phil Knirsch
Main meeting agenda for today was a discussion about the Workstation Tech Spec and any implications, changes or actions it would require from Base. Matthias Clasen from the Workstaing WG joined us today and every a long discussion and review specifically around the Core Services and

Java headless bugs

2014-02-21 Thread Jerry James
I've got a few comments and questions about the recently filed bugs asking us to switch from Requires: java to Requires: java-headless. First, the bugs list some web pages to view for more information. Number two on that list is this:

Re: Java headless bugs

2014-02-21 Thread Orion Poplawski
On 02/21/2014 09:31 AM, Jerry James wrote: Third, developers are offered two options in those bugs: (1) don't do anything and an automatic tool will make the change for you on or after March 17, or (2) make the change to java-headless yourself. I have one package for which I need a third

Re: Java headless bugs

2014-02-21 Thread Aleksandar Kurtakov
Hi Jerry, Closing as notabug is perfectly valid solution in your case. I also have a bunch of such packages myself. The thing is that there is no way for this to have been known by the automated tool thus we end up with such false positives. I have to also add that the percentage of false

Re: python-django update to Django-1.6

2014-02-21 Thread Matthias Runge
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 08:40:52AM -0500, john.flor...@dart.biz wrote: I too would much prefer this approach. For somebody like me who wants to maintain company-private packages based on django, this affords more flexibility. I realize it may always mean more packaging work to keep

Re: python-django update to Django-1.6

2014-02-21 Thread Matthias Runge
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 10:36:24AM -0500, Simo Sorce wrote: +1 I still have an application that is slowly moving to 1.5 but not there yet and it is painful to have to keep an older Fedora Version running just because of that. I hear you! My current plan would be, to provide at least a

Re: python-django update to Django-1.6

2014-02-21 Thread Stephen Gallagher
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 02/21/2014 01:14 PM, Matthias Runge wrote: On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 10:36:24AM -0500, Simo Sorce wrote: +1 I still have an application that is slowly moving to 1.5 but not there yet and it is painful to have to keep an older Fedora Version

Re: May I file 1000 bugs aka upstream test suite tracking

2014-02-21 Thread Adam Williamson
On Fri, 2014-02-21 at 16:48 +0200, Alexander Todorov wrote: On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 9:30 AM, Stephen Gallagher sgall...@redhat.com wrote: Please make sure to follow https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mass_bug_filing to the letter. If you do not, it will make life very difficult.

Re: python-django update to Django-1.6

2014-02-21 Thread Matthias Runge
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 07:57:34AM -0500, Stephen Gallagher wrote: Have we sorted out how exactly we want to build this in Fedora? I'm still in favor of killing off the python-django package in favor of python-django16 and python-django15. We haven't sorted this yet. Still I'd prefer a kind of

Re: python-django update to Django-1.6

2014-02-21 Thread Matthias Runge
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 01:28:54PM -0500, Stephen Gallagher wrote: On 02/21/2014 01:14 PM, Matthias Runge wrote: On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 10:36:24AM -0500, Simo Sorce wrote: +1 I still have an application that is slowly moving to 1.5 but not there yet and it is painful to have to keep an

orphaning of my packages

2014-02-21 Thread Simon Dietz
Hi folks, I will orphan my packages, because I have no time to shoulder the responsibility of my packages anymore. FEDORA: fife -- Cross platform game creation framework florence -- Extensible scalable on-screen virtual keyboard for GNOME opentracker -- Bit Torrent Tracker libowfat --

Re: python-django update to Django-1.6

2014-02-21 Thread Simo Sorce
On Fri, 2014-02-21 at 13:28 -0500, Stephen Gallagher wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 02/21/2014 01:14 PM, Matthias Runge wrote: On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 10:36:24AM -0500, Simo Sorce wrote: +1 I still have an application that is slowly moving to 1.5 but not there

Re: python-django update to Django-1.6

2014-02-21 Thread Stephen Gallagher
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 02/21/2014 01:58 PM, Simo Sorce wrote: On Fri, 2014-02-21 at 13:28 -0500, Stephen Gallagher wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 02/21/2014 01:14 PM, Matthias Runge wrote: On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 10:36:24AM -0500, Simo

Orphaning greybird

2014-02-21 Thread Athmane Madjoudj
Hello I'm orphaning greybird[1] theme suite for Xfce due to lack of free time. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/acls/name/greybird Thanks. -- Athmane -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct:

Re: python-django update to Django-1.6

2014-02-21 Thread John . Florian
From: mru...@matthias-runge.de Date: 02/21/2014 13:11 On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 08:40:52AM -0500, john.flor...@dart.biz wrote: I too would much prefer this approach. For somebody like me who wants to maintain company-private packages based on django, this affords more flexibility. I

Re: python-django update to Django-1.6

2014-02-21 Thread Stephen Gallagher
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 02/21/2014 02:06 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote: On 02/21/2014 01:58 PM, Simo Sorce wrote: On Fri, 2014-02-21 at 13:28 -0500, Stephen Gallagher wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 02/21/2014 01:14 PM, Matthias Runge wrote:

Re: python-django update to Django-1.6

2014-02-21 Thread John . Florian
From: sgall...@redhat.com To: devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Date: 02/21/2014 14:41 Subject: Re: python-django update to Django-1.6 Sent by: devel-boun...@lists.fedoraproject.org -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 02/21/2014 02:06 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote: On

Re: Orphaning greybird

2014-02-21 Thread Kevin Fenzi
On Fri, 21 Feb 2014 20:25:01 +0100 Athmane Madjoudj athm...@fedoraproject.org wrote: Hello I'm orphaning greybird[1] theme suite for Xfce due to lack of free time. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/acls/name/greybird I'll take it. Co-maintainers welcome. kevin signature.asc

Re: [Fedora-packaging] May I file 1000 bugs aka upstream test suite tracking

2014-02-21 Thread Michael Schwendt
On Fri, 21 Feb 2014 14:55:48 +, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: If you have code that can fairly reliably detect whether a test suite exists in the source tar.gz, then I think you would be justified in filing bugs for spec files which have not enabled the test suite. It would need to be a test

[Bug 1068742] Request epel7 branch

2014-02-21 Thread bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1068742 Nathanael Noblet nathan...@gnat.ca changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? ---

Re: [Base] Fedora Base Design Working Group (2014-02-21) meeting minutes and logs

2014-02-21 Thread Adam Williamson
On Fri, 2014-02-21 at 17:08 +0100, Phil Knirsch wrote: Installer is still a hot topic, but thats nothing we could resolve during our meeting and which might have to be brought up with FESCO again. So, as cmurf has been trying to point out on desktop@ , we (QA) have some concerns in this area

Re: python-django update to Django-1.6

2014-02-21 Thread Toshio Kuratomi
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 02:41:31PM -0500, Stephen Gallagher wrote: I'm having a parallel conversation about this with Toshio on #fedora-devel right now. He believes it may be possible to get Django to be parallel-installable on the base system without SCLs and is running some tests.

Re: python-django update to Django-1.6

2014-02-21 Thread Stephen Gallagher
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 02/21/2014 02:41 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote: On 02/21/2014 02:06 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote: On 02/21/2014 01:58 PM, Simo Sorce wrote: On Fri, 2014-02-21 at 13:28 -0500, Stephen Gallagher wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1

Re: [Base] Fedora Base Design Working Group (2014-02-21) meeting minutes and logs

2014-02-21 Thread John . Florian
From: awill...@redhat.com Date: 02/21/2014 15:20 Historically, QA and anaconda more or less agreed on an approach whereby the 'guided' partitioning path would be expected to work extremely reliably: QA would undertake to test every (well, nearly every) route through that path regularly and

Re: [Base] Fedora Base Design Working Group (2014-02-21) meeting minutes and logs

2014-02-21 Thread Adam Williamson
On Fri, 2014-02-21 at 16:38 -0500, john.flor...@dart.biz wrote: With the best of intentions, we'd gone from a reluctant exception to the 'no choice' design to a dropdown which included two very different complex choices: LVM and btrfs. So now the installer path which was originally

Re: Proposal to WGs and rel-eng: Move 90-default.preset from systemd to fedora-release

2014-02-21 Thread Kevin Kofler
Colin Walters wrote: That would mean that if we wanted to enable a new service by default, admins wouldn't get it on upgrades. … which is how it should be. I don't want upgrades to mess with my set of enabled services. (E.g., I found it extremely rude from firewalld to enable itself by

Re: Proposal to WGs and rel-eng: Move 90-default.preset from systemd to fedora-release

2014-02-21 Thread Kevin Kofler
Adam Williamson wrote: Very much +1. Putting it in kickstarts is a worse tying problem than putting it in a package: it ties this configuration mechanism to a system for creating deliverables, which is what kickstart is. We need to be moving away from having configuration in kickstarts, not

Re: Proposal to WGs and rel-eng: Move 90-default.preset from systemd to fedora-release

2014-02-21 Thread Reindl Harald
Am 21.02.2014 23:30, schrieb Kevin Kofler: Colin Walters wrote: That would mean that if we wanted to enable a new service by default, admins wouldn't get it on upgrades. … which is how it should be. I don't want upgrades to mess with my set of enabled services. (E.g., I found it extremely

Re: OpenCASCADE and applications depending on it

2014-02-21 Thread Kevin Kofler
Sandro Mani wrote: This is what I have now [1]. [1] http://smani.fedorapeople.org/salome/salome-kernel-7.3.0/ The string kernel module in the summaries and descriptions is misleading. (It can mislead users into thinking this is a module for the Linux kernel, when actually this is just the core

Re: Proposal to WGs and rel-eng: Move 90-default.preset from systemd to fedora-release

2014-02-21 Thread Kevin Kofler
Dennis Gilmore wrote: should be a absolute non starter, many installs happen interactively and would never get the file At least 2 possible solutions: (a) Write the file in Anaconda (at least for non-live installs, live installs can and should get it from the spin kickstart), add a spoke to

[perl-Net-SMTPS] Initial import (#1066842).

2014-02-21 Thread David Dick
commit a8541a82c79c7fa874e74b356e3bcecb000af8ec Author: David Dick dd...@cpan.org Date: Sat Feb 22 09:46:52 2014 +1100 Initial import (#1066842). .gitignore |1 + perl-Net-SMTPS.spec | 69 +++ sources |1 + 3

Re: OpenCASCADE and applications depending on it

2014-02-21 Thread Sandro Mani
On 21.02.2014 23:23, Kevin Kofler wrote: Sandro Mani wrote: This is what I have now [1]. [1] http://smani.fedorapeople.org/salome/salome-kernel-7.3.0/ The string kernel module in the summaries and descriptions is misleading. (It can mislead users into thinking this is a module for the Linux

[Test-Announce] 2014-02-24 @ 16:00 UTC - Fedora QA Meeting

2014-02-21 Thread Adam Williamson
# Fedora Quality Assurance Meeting # Date: 2014-02-24 # Time: 16:00 UTC (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Infrastructure/UTCHowto) # Location: #fedora-meeting on irc.freenode.net Greetings testers! It's meeting time again on Monday! .next efforts are ramping up again, with the WGs starting to talk

Re: Query about package versioning

2014-02-21 Thread Kevin Kofler
Vivek Goyal wrote: What is fast forwarding commits from f21 to f20. I guess you are saying there are bunch of commits in master branch and you want to now apply those commits to f20 branch too? Fast-forwarding is git jargon for doing a merge that simply accepts ALL commits from master into

Re: Fwd: [Rpm-maint] Heads up: Weak and rich dependencies in RPM

2014-02-21 Thread Kevin Kofler
(I'm going to reply to the grandparent post here too, to avoid sending 2 separate mails.) On 02/20/2014 11:50 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: Fedora isn't signed up to *use* it yet. We can still make the choice whether we want to or not, I believe. IMHO, we definitely want to use these features!

Re: May I file 1000 bugs aka upstream test suite tracking

2014-02-21 Thread Kevin Kofler
Alexander Todorov wrote: My question is: **Is everyone, especially package maintainers OK with me filing 1000+ bugs ?** NO! Especially not for something like this. There is no requirement for a test suite to exist, and there should not be such a requirement. If the test suite does not exist

Re: [Base] Fedora Base Design Working Group (2014-02-21) meeting minutes and logs

2014-02-21 Thread Chris Murphy
On Feb 21, 2014, at 2:38 PM, john.flor...@dart.biz wrote: That makes a lot of sense, but I'd like to add that when doing custom partitioning, you can easily spend the bulk of your actual interaction time getting the partitioning customized exactly the way you want and when anaconda

tcllib update

2014-02-21 Thread Dmitrij S. Kryzhevich
Hi! I submitted update for tcllib 1.11 - 1.15. If your software use it please test for compatibility and in case of problem feel free to decrease the karma. Dmitrij. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of

Re: orphaning of my packages

2014-02-21 Thread Christopher Meng
Thanks for your hard work on these packages in the past. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

File Text-Xslate-3.1.2.tar.gz uploaded to lookaside cache by cicku

2014-02-21 Thread Christopher Meng
A file has been added to the lookaside cache for perl-Text-Xslate: a785599c4087cc704a389b11a56bbe9c Text-Xslate-3.1.2.tar.gz -- Fedora Extras Perl SIG http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl perl-devel mailing list perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

File HTTP-Soup-0.01.tar.gz uploaded to lookaside cache by ddick

2014-02-21 Thread David Dick
A file has been added to the lookaside cache for perl-HTTP-Soup: 24a81ea1b7edd7902a32427f33830fb5 HTTP-Soup-0.01.tar.gz -- Fedora Extras Perl SIG http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl perl-devel mailing list perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

[perl-Text-Xslate] Update to 3.1.2

2014-02-21 Thread Christopher Meng
commit 9b4f39e2674d9d37f501c58ea67f18f93740effd Author: Christopher Meng i...@cicku.me Date: Fri Feb 21 16:14:39 2014 +0800 Update to 3.1.2 .gitignore|1 + perl-Text-Xslate.spec |7 +-- sources |2 +- 3 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 3

[perl-HTTP-Soup] Initial import (#1064817).

2014-02-21 Thread David Dick
commit 73f220b349500350fec2fce4839b59e3ec8771d2 Author: David Dick dd...@cpan.org Date: Fri Feb 21 19:14:48 2014 +1100 Initial import (#1064817). .gitignore |1 + perl-HTTP-Soup.spec | 61 +++ sources |1 + 3

[perl-HTTP-Soup/f20] Initial import (#1064817).

2014-02-21 Thread David Dick
Summary of changes: 73f220b... Initial import (#1064817). (*) (*) This commit already existed in another branch; no separate mail sent -- Fedora Extras Perl SIG http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl perl-devel mailing list perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

[perl-Text-Xslate/epel7: 2/2] Add missing Test::LeakTrace.

2014-02-21 Thread Christopher Meng
commit eabce0274c73f42c601ea6dadf0782f47741ee3a Author: Christopher Meng i...@cicku.me Date: Fri Feb 21 16:35:48 2014 +0800 Add missing Test::LeakTrace. perl-Text-Xslate.spec |6 +- 1 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) --- diff --git a/perl-Text-Xslate.spec

[perl-Text-Xslate] Add missing Test::LeakTrace.

2014-02-21 Thread Christopher Meng
Summary of changes: eabce02... Add missing Test::LeakTrace. (*) (*) This commit already existed in another branch; no separate mail sent -- Fedora Extras Perl SIG http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl perl-devel mailing list perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

[perl-Text-Xslate/epel7] (2 commits) ...Add missing Test::LeakTrace.

2014-02-21 Thread Christopher Meng
Summary of changes: 9b4f39e... Update to 3.1.2 (*) eabce02... Add missing Test::LeakTrace. (*) This commit already existed in another branch; no separate mail sent -- Fedora Extras Perl SIG http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl perl-devel mailing list

Broken dependencies: perl-PDL

2014-02-21 Thread buildsys
perl-PDL has broken dependencies in the epel-7 tree: On ppc64: perl-PDL-2.7.0-2.el7.1.ppc64 requires perl(PDL::Slatec) Please resolve this as soon as possible. -- Fedora Extras Perl SIG http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl perl-devel mailing list

Broken dependencies: dspam

2014-02-21 Thread buildsys
dspam has broken dependencies in the epel-7 tree: On x86_64: dspam-3.10.2-9.el7.x86_64 requires perl(Mail::MboxParser) On ppc64: dspam-3.10.2-9.el7.ppc64 requires perl(Mail::MboxParser) Please resolve this as soon as possible. -- Fedora Extras Perl SIG

Broken dependencies: stompclt

2014-02-21 Thread buildsys
stompclt has broken dependencies in the epel-7 tree: On x86_64: stompclt-1.1-1.el7.noarch requires perl(Net::STOMP::Client) = 0:2.0 On ppc64: stompclt-1.1-1.el7.noarch requires perl(Net::STOMP::Client) = 0:2.0 Please resolve this as soon as possible. -- Fedora Extras Perl SIG

[Bug 1067875] New: perl-ExtUtils-MakeMaker-6.90 is available

2014-02-21 Thread bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1067875 Bug ID: 1067875 Summary: perl-ExtUtils-MakeMaker-6.90 is available Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: perl-ExtUtils-MakeMaker Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged

[Bug 1067877] New: perl-HTTP-Tiny-0.043 is available

2014-02-21 Thread bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1067877 Bug ID: 1067877 Summary: perl-HTTP-Tiny-0.043 is available Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: perl-HTTP-Tiny Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged Assignee:

[Bug 1067878] New: perl-Log-Contextual-0.006002 is available

2014-02-21 Thread bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1067878 Bug ID: 1067878 Summary: perl-Log-Contextual-0.006002 is available Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: perl-Log-Contextual Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged

  1   2   >