On Wed, Jul 07, 2010 at 04:29:01PM -0400, Tom spot Callaway wrote:
However, if a subpackage is independent of any base package (it does
not require it, either implicitly or explicitly), it must include
copies of any license texts (as present in the source) which are
applicable to the
On Wed, 2010-07-07 at 16:29 -0400, Tom spot Callaway wrote:
[sailer] ghdl: ghdl-grt-0.29-1.138svn.0.fc13.x86_64
[sailer] libsqlite3x: libsq3-20071018-8.fc12.x86_64
[sailer] mingw32-libsqlite3x: mingw32-libsq3-20071018-9.fc12.noarch
[sailer] mingw32-wpcap:
On 07/07/2010 10:29 PM, Tom spot Callaway wrote:
Hello Fedora!
Please take a moment and read this email. There's cake in it for you.
Upon the advice of Red Hat Legal, we have slightly amended the Fedora
Licensing Guidelines
(https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines). The
On 07/07/2010 10:29 PM, Tom spot Callaway wrote:
[mmaslano] perl-Frontier-RPC: perl-Frontier-RPC-doc-0.07b4p1-10.fc14.noarch
The main package and sub-package already requires sub-package doc that
includes copying. Doc sub-package was created to solve conflicts between
those two.
Marcela
--
Hello,
Recoll is a desktop text search program, and it's been in other
distributions repositories for quite a long time but it's not in Fedora.
I am the Recoll developer.
Could someone tell me if I need to do something to advance the review
request or if there is simply no interest ?
Review
Author: xavierb
Update of /cvs/pkgs/rpms/rt3/EL-6
In directory cvs01.phx2.fedoraproject.org:/tmp/cvs-serv4483
Modified Files:
rt3.spec sources
Added Files:
rt-3.8.6-test-dependencies.diff rt-3.8.8-Makefile.diff
rt-3.8.8-config.diff
Removed Files:
On Wed, 07 Jul 2010 16:29:01 -0400, Tom wrote:
However, if a subpackage is independent of any base package (it does
not require it, either implicitly or explicitly), it must include
copies of any license texts (as present in the source) which are
applicable to the files contained
On 07/08/2010 06:48 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
b) Or simply apply
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/PackageEndOfLife
FTBS/rel-eng will certainly apply b), and I don't see much reasons for
not applying b) either.
I'm for b/ too. If rel-eng won't be happy, he can always
On 07/07/10 21:29, Tom spot Callaway wrote:
...
Okay. Here's the list of packages that I think might be affected by
this. Reminder: You need to check these packages and fix any which need
fixing, then email me and let me know which ones you checked/fixed.
Thanks!
~spot
...
[pghmcfc]
On Wed, 2010-07-07 at 16:29 -0400, Tom spot Callaway wrote:
[ankursinha] beteckna-fonts: beteckna-fonts-common-0.3-5.fc12.noarch
hi,
Can you please clarify this one? The sub packages depend on the -common,
which has the LICENSE etc. docs. Is this because the main package
doesn't Requires:
On 07/08/2010 02:09 PM, Ankur Sinha wrote:
On Wed, 2010-07-07 at 16:29 -0400, Tom spot Callaway wrote:
[ankursinha] beteckna-fonts: beteckna-fonts-common-0.3-5.fc12.noarch
hi,
Can you please clarify this one? The sub packages depend on the -common,
which has the LICENSE etc. docs. Is this
On Wed, 07 Jul 2010 16:29:01 -0400, Tom wrote:
[mschwendt] audacious: audacious-libs-2.4-0.3.alpha2.fc14.x86_64
Fixed in Rawhide.
[mschwendt] mcs: mcs-libs-0.7.1-9.fc13.x86_64
False positive. mcs-libs contains all the %doc files, and mcs automatically
depends on mcs-libs.
--
devel
Hi,
--- On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 1:59 AM, Tom spot Callaway
tcall...@redhat.com wrote:
| [shakthimaan] poky-scripts: poky-depends-6-6.fc13.noarch
\--
poky-depends is just a meta-package that pulls licensed software
already included in Fedora repository required for poky software
builds.
SK
--
On 07/08/2010 10:02 AM, Jean-Francois Dockes wrote:
Could someone tell me if I need to do something to advance the review
request or if there is simply no interest ?
Review request: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=590473
Hello,
the fastest way is offer swap review.
Reviews are
On Thu, 2010-07-08 at 10:02 +0200, Jean-Francois Dockes wrote:
Review request: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=590473
Taken,
regards,
Ankur
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
On Thu, 2010-07-08 at 09:18 +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
Hi!
F14 now has gcc-4.5-RH compiler instead of 4.4-RH.
icu test-suite fails in koji with 4.5.0, but passes locally with 4.4.4.
If I get a chance after fiddling with all the licence foo I'll see if
its truly gcc related or some specific
[sharkcz] ann: ann-libs-1.1.1-4.fc12.x86_64
= already in -libs
[sharkcz] codeblocks: codeblocks-libs-10.05-1.fc14.x86_64
= fixed in CVS
[sharkcz] openhpi: openhpi-libs-2.14.1-3.fc14.x86_64
= fixed in CVS
[sharkcz] podofo: podofo-libs-0.8.1-2.fc14.x86_64
= correct in actual pkgs
[sharkcz]
Hello again,
I am told that I need to add the FE-NEEDSPONSOR to the blocked bugs list
for the review request. If I understand well, this is so that I can find a
sponsor to become a Fedora package maintainer.
Maybe I'm being a bit dense here, and not doing it the right way, but my
primary hope
On Wed, 07 Jul 2010 16:29:01 -0400 Tom spot Callaway wrote:
[michich] opencryptoki: opencryptoki-libs-2.3.1-6.fc14.x86_64
[michich] tpm-tools: tpm-tools-pkcs11-1.3.5-2.fc13.x86_64
Fixed and built for Rawhide.
Michal
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
[jskarvad] sendmail: sendmail-milter-8.14.4-8.fc14.x86_64
license added to sendmail-milter-8.14.4-9.fc14
regards
Jaroslav
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
On 07/07/2010 10:29 PM, Tom spot Callaway wrote:
[jsafrane] net-snmp: 1:net-snmp-libs-5.5-16.fc14.x86_64
False positive, net-snmp-libs already contains COPYING in %doc
[jsafrane] OpenIPMI: OpenIPMI-libs-2.0.18-2.fc14.x86_64
Fixed, OpenIPMI-2.0.18-3.fc14
Jan
--
devel mailing list
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 07/07/2010 04:29 PM, Tom spot Callaway wrote:
[sgallagh] sssd: libcollection-0.4.0-15.fc14.x86_64
libpath_utils-0.2.0-15.fc14.x86_64 libref_array-0.1.0-15.fc14.x86_64
libdhash-0.4.0-15.fc14.x86_64 sssd-client-1.2.1-15.fc14.x86_64
All of these
On Thu, 2010-07-08 at 13:45 +0200, Jean-Francois Dockes wrote:
Hello again,
I am told that I need to add the FE-NEEDSPONSOR to the blocked bugs list
for the review request. If I understand well, this is so that I can find a
sponsor to become a Fedora package maintainer.
Maybe I'm being a
perl-Pugs-Compiler-Rule has broken dependencies in the rawhide tree:
On x86_64:
perl-Pugs-Compiler-Rule-0.37-4.fc13.noarch requires
perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.10.1)
On i386:
perl-Pugs-Compiler-Rule-0.37-4.fc13.noarch requires
perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.10.1)
Please resolve this as soon
perl-Data-Alias has broken dependencies in the rawhide tree:
On x86_64:
perl-Data-Alias-1.07-6.fc13.x86_64 requires perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.10.1)
On i386:
perl-Data-Alias-1.07-6.fc13.i686 requires perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.10.1)
Please resolve this as soon as possible.
--
Fedora
Ankur Sinha writes:
Becoming a package maintainer will need you to go through the links that
Stanislav has provided. I guess you can ask Terje Røsten , who
submitted the spec etc. to take over the review and package it (if you
don't want to do it yourself)
Thanks, I'll try this, then, if
[psabata] iproute: iproute-doc-2.6.34-3.fc14.x86_64
Should be fixed. Both iproute and iproute-doc now install the COPYING file.
iproute-2.6.34-5.fc14
iproute-doc-2.6.34-5.fc14
-- Petr
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Compose started at Thu Jul 8 08:15:12 UTC 2010
Broken deps for i386
--
BackupPC-3.1.0-14.fc14.noarch requires perl-suidperl
GtkAda-devel-2.14.0-5.fc14.i686 requires libgnat-4.4.so
PragmARC-20060427-6.fc13.i686
On 07/07/2010 10:29 PM, Tom spot Callaway wrote:
[plautrba] finger: finger-server-0.17-39.fc12.x86_64
Fixed and built for Rawhide.
Petr
--
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
On Wednesday, July 07, 2010 10:29:01 pm Tom spot Callaway wrote:
file-libs-5.04-10.fc14.x86_64
Fixed in rawhide
devel-announce mailing list
devel-annou...@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel-announce
Jan Kaluza
--
devel mailing list
On 07/07/2010 06:08 PM, Matt Domsch wrote:
cim-schema-docs has no license file packaged with it. /me blames the
DMTF. The content is a separate tarball. I suppose we could suck the
license file out of the other content zip (the MOF files) and include
here. Thoughts?
If the appropriate
On 07/07/2010 10:49 PM, Juan Rodriguez wrote:
On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 3:29 PM, Tom spot Callaway tcall...@redhat.com
mailto:tcall...@redhat.com wrote:
[nushio] rabbitvcs: rabbitvcs-core-0.13.3-1.fc14.noarch
I'm not very well versed in legalese, but rabbitvcs-core does include
the
On 07/08/2010 03:07 AM, Till Maas wrote:
On Wed, Jul 07, 2010 at 04:29:01PM -0400, Tom spot Callaway wrote:
However, if a subpackage is independent of any base package (it does
not require it, either implicitly or explicitly), it must include
copies of any license texts (as present in
On 07/08/2010 03:44 AM, Caolán McNamara wrote:
On Wed, 2010-07-07 at 16:29 -0400, Tom spot Callaway wrote:
Basically, what this means is this: If you maintain a package, and that
package generates subpackages, then each subpackage must either include
a copy of the appropriate licensing texts
On 07/08/2010 03:52 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
Can you elaborate the cases below?
I can't spot anything wrong with them:
[corsepiu] gtkglext: gtkglext-libs-1.2.0-10.fc12.x86_64
# repoquery -ql 'gtkglext-libs'
...
/usr/share/doc/gtkglext-libs-1.2.0/AUTHORS
On 07/08/2010 04:12 AM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Wed, 07 Jul 2010 16:29:01 -0400, Tom wrote:
However, if a subpackage is independent of any base package (it does
not require it, either implicitly or explicitly), it must include
copies of any license texts (as present in the source)
On 07/08/2010 04:39 AM, Ankur Sinha wrote:
Can you please clarify this one? The sub packages depend on the -common,
which has the LICENSE etc. docs. Is this because the main package
doesn't Requires: -common?
Caveat: I have not looked at your specific spec, so I am hypothesizing here.
Lets
On Wednesday, July 07, 2010 10:29:01 pm Tom spot Callaway wrote:
Hello Fedora!
Please take a moment and read this email. There's cake in it for you.
[jreznik] leonidas-kde-theme:
leonidas-kde-theme-lion-11.0.3-1.fc12.noarch
leonidas-kde-theme-landscape-11.0.3-1.fc12.noarch
rpmls
2010/7/8 Tom spot Callaway tcall...@redhat.com:
On 07/08/2010 04:12 AM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Wed, 07 Jul 2010 16:29:01 -0400, Tom wrote:
However, if a subpackage is independent of any base package (it does
not require it, either implicitly or explicitly), it must include
copies
On 07/07/2010 04:29 PM, Tom spot Callaway wrote:
[omajid] dbus-java: dbus-java-javadoc-2.7-3.fc13.noarch
[omajid] libmatthew-java: libmatthew-java-javadoc-0.7.2-2.fc13.x86_64
Fixed in rawhide.
Cheers,
Omair
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
On Thu, 2010-07-08 at 10:00 -0400, Tom spot Callaway wrote:
On 07/08/2010 04:39 AM, Ankur Sinha wrote:
Can you please clarify this one? The sub packages depend on the -common,
which has the LICENSE etc. docs. Is this because the main package
doesn't Requires: -common?
Caveat: I have not
On 07/08/2010 10:37 AM, Chen Lei wrote:
Dose this mean we only need to add license text to -libs subpackage
instead of base package if we assume the base package depends on -libs
subpackage?
If the base package depends on -libs subpackage, then you can only put
the license text in -libs.
Author: iarnell
Update of /cvs/pkgs/rpms/perl-Test-Differences/devel
In directory cvs01.phx2.fedoraproject.org:/tmp/cvs-serv30625
Modified Files:
perl-Test-Differences.spec
Log Message:
* Thu Jul 08 2010 Iain Arnell iarn...@gmail.com 0.500-2
- explicitly require perl(Text::Diff)
On 07/07/2010 10:29 PM, Tom spot Callaway wrote:
[kklic] emacs: 1:emacs-common-23.2-5.fc14.x86_64
1:emacs-el-23.2-5.fc14.x86_64
Fixed in rawhide.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
Summary: perl-PadWalker request for EL-6 branch
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=612583
Summary: perl-PadWalker request for EL-6 branch
Product:
Hiyas,
currently the critical path comps groups are named like this:
core
critical-path-base
critical-path-gnome
critical-path-apps
critical-path-kde
critical-path-lxde
critical-path-xfce
Since these groups do not share a common prefix unique to all critical
path comps groups, I want to propose
On Wed, 2010-07-07 at 16:29 -0400, Tom spot Callaway wrote:
[ankursinha] beteckna-fonts: beteckna-fonts-common-0.3-5.fc12.noarch
built in rawhide:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2305148
regards,
Ankur
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
A mass rebuild would be recommended as the new compiler will produce faster
code. I believe everything will benefit and it's worth looking into. For
example I noticed a significant difference on the OpenSUSE distro when GCC
was upgraded and they repackaged their software with it in their
Till Maas (opensou...@till.name) said:
Since these groups do not share a common prefix unique to all critical
path comps groups, I want to propose to change this. E.g. there could
be
a) a critical-path-core group with the same contents as core
b) or with only a groupreq on core
c) or the
On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 10:24:13AM +0200, Michael Schroeder wrote:
It's not that hard to fix, there's no need to keep the target
rpm in memory at all. The source rpm can be limited to some
max size with the down side that the end of the target rpm
cannot match the start of the source rpm
On Thu, Jul 08, 2010 at 11:34:25AM -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote:
Till Maas (opensou...@till.name) said:
Since these groups do not share a common prefix unique to all critical
path comps groups, I want to propose to change this. E.g. there could
be
a) a critical-path-core group with the
On Thu, 2010-07-08 at 11:31 -0400, Brandon Lozza wrote:
A mass rebuild would be recommended as the new compiler will produce
faster code. I believe everything will benefit and it's worth looking
into. For example I noticed a significant difference on the OpenSUSE
distro when GCC was upgraded
On 07/08/2010 05:07 PM, Marcela Mašláňová wrote:
Author: mmaslano
Index: perl.spec
===
RCS file: /cvs/pkgs/rpms/perl/devel/perl.spec,v
retrieving revision 1.273
retrieving revision 1.274
diff -u -p -r1.273 -r1.274
---
2010/7/8 Jakub Jelinek ja...@redhat.com:
Generally, much better speedup can be achieved by using PGO
(-fprofile-generate, run on some testsuite, -fprofile-use).
GCC itself is built that way for several years, but it would be useful if
other performance sensitive packages were built that way
On Wed, 2010-07-07 at 16:29 -0400, Tom spot Callaway wrote:
Q. I thought duplicating files in a spec was forbidden?
A. This is a permitted exception to that.
Can we get this new exception reflected in the packaging and review
guidelines, please ?
--
devel mailing list
Le 07/07/2010 22:29, Tom spot Callaway a écrit :
[remi] mysql++: mysql++-manuals-3.1.0-1.fc14.x86_64
done
[remi] ocsinventory: ocsinventory-reports-1.3.2-3.fc14.noarch
false positive
Regards
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Author: mdomsch
Update of /cvs/extras/rpms/perl-GnuPG-Interface/EL-6
In directory cvs01.phx2.fedoraproject.org:/tmp/cvs-serv28707
Modified Files:
.cvsignore perl-GnuPG-Interface.spec sources
Log Message:
update to match devel branch
Index: .cvsignore
On Thu, 2010-07-08 at 17:33 +0200, Michael Schroeder wrote:
On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 10:24:13AM +0200, Michael Schroeder wrote:
It's not that hard to fix, there's no need to keep the target
rpm in memory at all. The source rpm can be limited to some
max size with the down side that the end
Author: spot
Update of /cvs/pkgs/rpms/perl-Glib/EL-5
In directory cvs01.phx2.fedoraproject.org:/tmp/cvs-serv17302
Modified Files:
perl-Glib.spec sources
Log Message:
disable tests
Index: perl-Glib.spec
===
RCS file:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hallo,
I will inform you, that I have take ownership of the libart_lgpl
package.
Best Regards:
Jochen Schmitt
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=552616
Tom spot Callaway tcall...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=552616
--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2010-07-08
13:45:23 EDT ---
perl-Glib-1.223-1.el5.1 has been
On 07/08/2010 12:09 PM, Matthias Clasen wrote:
On Wed, 2010-07-07 at 16:29 -0400, Tom spot Callaway wrote:
Q. I thought duplicating files in a spec was forbidden?
A. This is a permitted exception to that.
Can we get this new exception reflected in the packaging and review
guidelines,
On 8 July 2010 18:04, Jonathan Dieter jdie...@lesbg.com wrote:
On Thu, 2010-07-08 at 17:33 +0200, Michael Schroeder wrote:
On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 10:24:13AM +0200, Michael Schroeder wrote:
It's not that hard to fix, there's no need to keep the target
rpm in memory at all. The source rpm can
On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 6:02 PM, Mike McGrath mmcgr...@redhat.com wrote:
There is an ongoing outage at this time in PHX2. The exact start time is
not yet known and the ETA to be fixed is not yet known.
To convert UTC to your local time, take a look at
On 07/07/2010 11:29 PM, Tom spot Callaway wrote:
[rrelyea] pcsc-lite: pcsc-lite-doc-1.6.1-4.fc14.noarch
pcsc-lite-libs-1.6.1-4.fc14.x86_64
Fixed in rawhide.
--
Kalev
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
I would like to take over nodm, sponsor needed.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=612671
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Greetings Fedora developers...
First some background for folks that were not around back in the day:
There used to be a Fedora Core and a Fedora Extras. Fedora Core
was maintained internally inside Red Hat by Red Hat employees. Fedora
Extras was maintained by community folks much in the way
On Thu, Jul 08, 2010 at 02:28:13PM -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
c) Just leave them open and let people pick pick pick away at them a
few at a time? We might be done by Fedora20. Or perhaps not.
f) Make a concerted push to clear the NEEDSPONSOR blocker. Get all
those folks sponsored and ask
Am Thu, 08 Jul 2010 22:51:57 +0200
schrieb Till Maas opensou...@till.name:
On Thu, Jul 08, 2010 at 02:28:13PM -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
c) Just leave them open and let people pick pick pick away at them a
few at a time? We might be done by Fedora20. Or perhaps not.
f) Make a concerted
On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 4:28 PM, Kevin Fenzi ke...@scrye.com wrote:
So, here we are today with 242 still open merge reviews:
http://fedoraproject.org/PackageReviewStatus/MERGE.html
(Plus a few that were closed when they shouldn't have been).
So, what do we do?
Some possible options:
a)
Hi,
[pfj] xmms: 1:xmms-libs-1.2.11-11.20071117cvs.fc14.x86_64
Unless something very odd is going on here, xmms-libs does have the
COPYING file included (just checked the spec file).
Could it be that there is a problem with the build sys on x86_64 which
is causing it to miss?
TTFN
Paul
--
Hi all.
I'm orphaning GNU Gadu (gg2). I no longer use it (pidgin replaces it
quite well), upstream is dead and the project website domain has been
taken over. If someone is interested, feel free to pick it up. Otherwise
it should probably be dropped before F-14.
There are some crasher bugs
On Thu, 2010-07-08 at 14:28 -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
So, here we are today with 242 still open merge reviews:
http://fedoraproject.org/PackageReviewStatus/MERGE.html
(Plus a few that were closed when they shouldn't have been).
So, what do we do?
Some possible options:
a) Just close
Am Mittwoch, den 07.07.2010, 16:29 -0400 schrieb Tom spot Callaway:
Okay. Here's the list of packages that I think might be affected by
this.
...
[cwickert] nimbus: nimbus-metacity-theme-0.1.4-2.fc13.noarch
gtk-nimbus-engine-0.1.4-2.fc13.x86_64 nimbus-icon-theme-0.1.4-2.fc13.noarch
$ rpm
Jeff Garzik (jgar...@pobox.com) said:
After a large survey, it is readily apparent that many of these 242
have been untouched for -years-, for packages that have been merged
into Fedora and used happily for -years-.
Further hundreds of other reviews outside your 242 are listed as
assigned
On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 6:26 PM, Bill Nottingham nott...@redhat.com wrote:
I'd like not to assume the worst, but given your mass closing of some
review bugs, plus your arguments here about why, plus your request for
a review swap earlier, I'm having trouble reading this as anything other
than a
Here's where we are on Python 2.7 for Fedora 14: [1]
I've updated my python src.rpm to 2.7 final (rather than the 2.7rc2 I
had previously):
http://dmalcolm.fedorapeople.org/python-packaging/python-2.7-3.fc14.src.rpm
You can see/download a successful scratch build of this here:
On Thu, 2010-07-08 at 11:31 -0400, Brandon Lozza wrote:
A mass rebuild would be recommended as the new compiler will produce
faster code. I believe everything will benefit and it's worth looking
into. For example I noticed a significant difference on the OpenSUSE
distro when GCC was upgraded
On 7/8/10, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote:
On Thu, 2010-07-08 at 11:31 -0400, Brandon Lozza wrote:
A mass rebuild would be recommended as the new compiler will produce
faster code. I believe everything will benefit and it's worth looking
into. For example I noticed a
On Thu, 2010-07-08 at 14:28 -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
Greetings Fedora developers...
c) Just leave them open and let people pick pick pick away at them a
few at a time? We might be done by Fedora20. Or perhaps not.
Does the existence of a bunch of open merge reviews cause any actual
harm or
On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 4:02 PM, David Malcolm dmalc...@redhat.com wrote:
Hope this is helpful
Dave
Is there any hints on expected gotchas that we can look out for.
Deprecations or API changes of significant merit?
-jef
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
On Thu, 08 Jul 2010 20:29:42 -0400
Jeff Garzik jgar...@pobox.com wrote:
On 07/08/2010 08:23 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Thu, 2010-07-08 at 14:28 -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
Greetings Fedora developers...
c) Just leave them open and let people pick pick pick away at them
a few at a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 07/08/2010 09:05 AM, Chen Lei wrote:
It seems MeeGo builds core packages by using PGO already. Is there
anyone who would like to volunteer to write a packaging guideline
about using PGO?
That's not so easy to generalize. As Jakub wrote, you
On Thu, 2010-07-08 at 17:51 -0700, Ulrich Drepper wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 07/08/2010 09:05 AM, Chen Lei wrote:
It seems MeeGo builds core packages by using PGO already. Is there
anyone who would like to volunteer to write a packaging guideline
about
On Thu, 2010-07-08 at 18:36 -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
On Thu, 08 Jul 2010 20:29:42 -0400
Jeff Garzik jgar...@pobox.com wrote:
On 07/08/2010 08:23 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Thu, 2010-07-08 at 14:28 -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
Greetings Fedora developers...
c) Just leave them
On Thu, 2010-07-08 at 09:18 +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
Hi!
F14 now has gcc-4.5-RH compiler instead of 4.4-RH.
For the changes (especially user visible ones), see
http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.5/changes.html
(though the list contains even many features that have been
backported to 4.4-RH. I
On Thu, 08 Jul 2010 17:59:44 -0700
Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote:
Thank the magic of mediawiki!
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/PackageMaintainers/ReviewRequests
seems several important pages do. So perhaps they should be updated to
use the link below..
Is there a way to include pre-packaged workloads analysis? I realise
we'd have to regenerate these somehow possible for each compiler update
(not sure how the files look).
What a workload means to the compiler is all the results of all the
conditional branches in the compiled code. What sites
This has a multilib problem. libstdc++ has a few of the same files in
both the x86-64 and i686 packages, making it impossible to have both
installed (which should be possible, and is in F13).
The files are a few Python bits
in /usr/share/gcc-4.5.0/python/libstdcxx/v6/ .
Would it work if
On Thu, 2010-07-08 at 18:21 -0700, Roland McGrath wrote:
This has a multilib problem. libstdc++ has a few of the same files in
both the x86-64 and i686 packages, making it impossible to have both
installed (which should be possible, and is in F13).
The files are a few Python bits
in
I dunno, I'm not a multilib expert, just an asshole telling you to make
it work =)
I'm no expert on the rpm part of the world either, but I have seen many
things and I'll yell some out from the corner now and then.
I think it probably doesn't 'work', in the sense that you can't install
the
On Thu, 2010-07-08 at 09:18 +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
Hi!
F14 now has gcc-4.5-RH compiler instead of 4.4-RH.
For the changes (especially user visible ones), see
http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.5/changes.html
(though the list contains even many features that have been
backported to 4.4-RH. I
On Thu, 2010-07-08 at 18:17 -0700, Roland McGrath wrote:
Is there a way to include pre-packaged workloads analysis? I realise
we'd have to regenerate these somehow possible for each compiler update
(not sure how the files look).
What a workload means to the compiler is all the results of
So I'd package up stuff, do a koji build, download it, run my
representative test suite, upload the result and do another build.
Oh. Well, sure then. What was the question? You don't want much of it
automated at all then, but you're asking about the little?
The profiled build will litter
On Thu, Jul 08, 2010 at 06:32:37PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
I think it probably doesn't 'work', in the sense that you can't install
the f13 -devel i686 and x86-64 packages together, but in another sense
that's fine, as I don't think our multilib policy says you _will_ be
able to install
On Thu, 2010-07-08 at 22:36 -0400, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
On Thu, Jul 08, 2010 at 06:32:37PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
I think it probably doesn't 'work', in the sense that you can't install
the f13 -devel i686 and x86-64 packages together, but in another sense
that's fine, as I
On Thu, 2010-07-08 at 22:36 -0400, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
On Thu, Jul 08, 2010 at 06:32:37PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
I think it probably doesn't 'work', in the sense that you can't install
the f13 -devel i686 and x86-64 packages together, but in another sense
that's fine, as I
On Thu, 2010-07-08 at 20:02 -0400, David Malcolm wrote:
Here's where we are on Python 2.7 for Fedora 14: [1]
I've updated my python src.rpm to 2.7 final (rather than the 2.7rc2 I
had previously):
http://dmalcolm.fedorapeople.org/python-packaging/python-2.7-3.fc14.src.rpm
You can
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=502358
Iain Arnell iarn...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
1 - 100 of 119 matches
Mail list logo
