Re: Heads up: glibmm/gtkmm now requires -std=c++11

On 09/23/2015 02:56 AM, Josh Stone wrote: > On 09/22/2015 05:49 PM, Mamoru TASAKA wrote: >> Rather, can't be pkgconfig file in gtkmm30 modified for now to add -std=c++11 >> to Cflags? > > I'd guess that they really require *at least* c++11. > > A project might instead choose gnu++11, c++14,

Re: F23 broke dependencies

On 09/23/2015 05:31 PM, Richard Shaw wrote: > On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 7:00 AM, Vít Ondruch > wrote: > > > [trustedqsl] > > tqsllib-devel-2.4-9.fc23.1.i686 requires tqsllib(x86-32) = > 0:2.4-9.fc23 > >

Heads up: glibmm/gtkmm now requires -std=c++11

Hi, A quick heads up to anybody who might run into cryptic build errors when building apps that use glibmm/gtkmm: Latest glibmm/gtkmm stack in rawhide and F23 now uses C++11 features in header files. This means when building other programs that use those headers, the C++ compiler needs to be in

GNOME 3.18.0 megaupdate

Hi all, GNOME 3.18.0 is going to be released this week and I'll be wrangling the builds for Fedora. Same as with the pre-releases we've built so far, we are still using the f23-gnome side tag in koji for preparing everything. If you are helping with builds, please use: $ fedpkg build --target

Re: Freeimage 3.10 -> 3.17 upgrade, dealing with library incompatibility

On 09/17/2015 10:28 AM, Sandro Mani wrote: > - Nothing in Fedora seems to require libfreeimageplus, so just build > 3.17 in rawhide and F23 and have the libfreeimageplus ABI break silently > sneak in. Probably shouldn't even mention this option. If nothing depends on it, just go with what's

Re: Orphaned packages available for new point of contact

On 09/14/2015 08:28 AM, Thomas Spura wrote: > Kalev Lember <kalevlem...@gmail.com <mailto:kalevlem...@gmail.com>> > schrieb am So., 13. Sep. 2015 um 13:37 Uhr: > > On 09/09/2015 10:10 PM, Thomas Spura wrote: > > I retired ScientificPython as

Re: Orphaned packages available for new point of contact

On 09/09/2015 10:10 PM, Thomas Spura wrote: > I retired ScientificPython as it does require an older numpy and doesn't > build anytime soon with the current numpy and will be FTBFS for a longer > time [1]. How did you retire it? It doesn't appear to be blocked in koji for some reason and

accidental grilo soname change

Hi, Just a quick heads up that it's not necessary to rebuild anything grilo dependant if you get rawhide broken deps email later today. grilo in rawhide had a soname bump last night, but it was unintended; I'm working it out with upstream and will build a new grilo in a bit that restores ABI

Re: Fedora 23 Branched 20150905 compose check report

On 09/05/2015 10:51 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Sat, 2015-09-05 at 11:54 -0400, Fedora compose checker wrote: >> Missing expected images: >> >> Kde Live i386 >> Workstation Live i386 >> Cloud base Disk i386 >> Minimal Disk armhfp >> Cloud base Disk x86_64 >> Kde Live x86_64 >> Kde Disk armhfp

Re: GNOME 3.17.91 megaupdate

On 08/31/2015 09:55 AM, Kalev Lember wrote: > Just a quick heads up that it's GNOME 3.17.91 release this week and we > are still using the f23-gnome side tag for builds - please use 'fedpkg > build --target f23-gnome' if you are helping with builds. > > I'll take care of subm

GNOME 3.17.91 megaupdate

Hi all, Just a quick heads up that it's GNOME 3.17.91 release this week and we are still using the f23-gnome side tag for builds - please use 'fedpkg build --target f23-gnome' if you are helping with builds. I'll take care of submitting them all in a single bodhi update ticket later this week.

Re: bodhi2: ACL validation mechanism was unable to determine ACLs

On 08/28/2015 12:45 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote: On 08/28/2015 11:58 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote: Ralf Corsepius wrote: Also, I have not found any means to kill this job in bodhi/koji, Had you tried koji cancel-task 10843003? (It's too late to try it now, now that the build has timed out.) No, I

Re: F-23 Branched report: 20150826 changes

On 08/26/2015 04:12 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote: On 26/08/15 11:42 +, Fedora Branched Report wrote: [iwhd] iwhd-1.6-16.fc23.armv7hl requires libboost_thread.so.1.57.0 iwhd-1.6-16.fc23.armv7hl requires libboost_system.so.1.57.0 Needs mongodb to be successfully rebuilt first.

Re: can't submit updates for f22?

On 08/25/2015 03:04 PM, David Howells wrote: Peter Robinson pbrobin...@gmail.com wrote: updates-testing always enabled here and only: python-fedora-0.5.4-1.fc21.noarch It seems it should be, maybe issues with local mirror being out of sync?

Re: GNOME 3.17.90 megaupdate

On 08/17/2015 12:51 PM, Kalev Lember wrote: Hi all, Just a quick heads up that it's GNOME 3.17.90 release this week and we have a f23-gnome side tag for builds - please use 'fedpkg build --target f23-gnome' if you are helping with builds. I'll take care of submitting them all in a single

GNOME 3.17.90 megaupdate

Hi all, Just a quick heads up that it's GNOME 3.17.90 release this week and we have a f23-gnome side tag for builds - please use 'fedpkg build --target f23-gnome' if you are helping with builds. I'll take care of submitting them all in a single bodhi update ticket later this week. Thanks,

Re: Self Introduction: Oded Gabbay

On 08/09/2015 06:06 PM, Oded Gabbay wrote: Hello all, My name is Oded and I'm working at Red Hat in the desktop graphics team. Before that, I've worked at several companies, mainly on Linux kernel and drivers (graphics and networking) for x86 and for POWER. My current focus is to enable

Re: [HEADS UP] rpm-4.12.90 in rawhide

On 08/05/2015 10:02 PM, Matthias Clasen wrote: As a test balloon, I've now added file triggers to gdk-pixbuf2-2.31.5 -2.fc24, and librsvg2-2.40.9-3.fc24 now relies on them to get its pixbuf loader registered. Let me know if you see any problems with those updates that might be caused by

Re: Self Introduction: Ross Lagerwall

Welcome aboard, Ross! -- Kalev -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: updates-testing: multilib broken for days now

On 07/09/2015 07:48 PM, Miloslav Trmač wrote: On 09/07/15 12:39, Miloslav Trmač wrote: Protected multilib versions: polkit-0.113-1.fc21.x86_64 != polkit-0.112-7.fc21.1.i686 This is due to polkit splitting out a polkit-libs package between those two versions. This makes it only

Re: Orphaned packages looking for new maintainers

On 06/17/2015 09:30 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote: I've just orphaned packages owned by 'vicodan' as he has not been reachable and his bugzilla account is not functional per fesco ticket: https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1448 Please feel free to take on the point of contact for any of these

Re: Can soft dependencies help to get the proper kernel-devel packages? (Was: Soft- Re: DKMS is not installing the right kernel-devel package)

On 06/12/2015 02:40 PM, Radek Holy wrote: AFAIK, it is discussed these days whether weak dependencies can be used to express package preferences: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/WeakDependencies IIRC, there were some concerns but I don't remember what was the conclusion. The OR

Re: DNF vs YUM, $pkg, $pkg-mpi, $pkg-openmpi having same provides

On 06/12/2015 10:28 AM, Radek Holy wrote: If a package Requires: foo and both bar and barbaz Provides: foo, they are handled as being equally suitable. DNF/libsolv is not going to prefer packages with shorter names. Yes, very much agreed here. Please don't add the yum shortest name hack to

Re: gcc5 C++11 ABI rebuilds and FTBFS packages

On 05/18/2015 02:42 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote: On 18/05/15 13:39 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote: On 04/05/15 13:09 +0200, Kalev Lember wrote: lyx: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=9651160 It looks like LyX forward-declares std::basic_string, which is (1) undefined behaviour

Re: GNOME 3.16.2 megaupdate

On 05/10/2015 06:21 PM, Kalev Lember wrote: Hi all, One last GNOME megaupdate for F22 to do! And it's available in updates-testing now: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-8219 -- Kalev -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org

GNOME 3.16.2 megaupdate

Hi all, One last GNOME megaupdate for F22 to do! Next week is the 3.16.2 release and as usual, please use 'fedpkg build --target f22-gnome' for the builds and list any RHBZ bug numbers that the builds fix in the spreadsheet at

Re: gcc5 C++11 ABI rebuilds and FTBFS packages

On 05/07/2015 09:42 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: [This requires a degree in OCaml, but anyway ...] Here is the script I use to rebuild the OCaml packages, in order, to any depth of dependencies, automatically: http://git.annexia.org/?p=goals.git;a=blob;f=fedora_ocaml_rebuild.ml It is

gcc5 C++11 ABI rebuilds and FTBFS packages

Hi all, TL;DR: Rawhide C++ programs should be back to usable; a list of remaining FTBFS packages down below. Here's the long version: As many of you have noticed, rawhide hasn't been lately as fun and well working as it was during the F22 cycle, mainly due to the fact that C++ programs

Removing packages that have broken dependencies in F22 tree, v2

Hi all, Here's another look at F22 broken dependencies. Since last week, we're down to just a handful of packages. Thanks to everybody who's helped out with cleaning this up! The goal is to ship Fedora releases with repos where all packages are installable. On 2015-05-11, any packages that have

Re: convert program from ImageMagick broken in rawhide?

On 05/01/2015 03:06 PM, Richard Shaw wrote: Bug submitted: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1217741 Perhaps it just needs to be rebuilt for the c++ ABI breakage? I ran into the same thing and pushed

Re: nettle, gnutls: soname version bump in rawhide

On 04/28/2015 12:04 PM, Kalev Lember wrote: In this case, however, I think it makes sense to not do a full parallel installation, but just enough to preserve the ABI compatibility and exclude headers and anything else that could be used to link against it. This makes sure that anything newly

Re: Removing packages that have broken dependencies in F22 tree

On 04/28/2015 12:51 PM, Björn Persson wrote: Kalev Lember kalevlem...@gmail.com wrote: In two weeks we will be entering the F22 Final Freeze. At that point, Fedora release engineering retires any packages that still have broken dependencies in the F22 tree. Do you mean that they'll

Re: Overlapping update?

On 04/28/2015 05:05 PM, Dave Johansen wrote: I had rebuilt odb for F22 because of a gcc version change (it's a plugin) and submitted an update [1]. Then another build was done and an update submitted [2]. Do I need to revoke my request? Or what's the right way to handle this? Yes, please.

Re: Removing packages that have broken dependencies in F22 tree

On 04/28/2015 10:16 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote: Dne 28.4.2015 v 00:45 Kalev Lember napsal(a): rubygem-rugged tdawson I am not maintainer of this, but please do not remove this. Rugged was broken by unannounced libgit2 update and there is still not official release fixing

Re: Removing packages that have broken dependencies in F22 tree

On 04/28/2015 03:22 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote: Kalev Lember wrote: quarticurve-kwin-theme kkofler This one can just go away, it would need to be ported to KWin 5 and I probably won't be doing that port. (The KWin 4 version already renders worse than intended on all current 4.x releases

Re: nettle, gnutls: soname version bump in rawhide

On 04/28/2015 09:10 AM, Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos wrote: On Mon, 2015-04-27 at 16:33 +0200, Kalev Lember wrote: My concern is that there's probably a lot of 3rd party apps that use gnutls. Even if it's just as simple as rebuilding, it probably takes a while for them to switch over. I think

Re: Making 3rd party gstreamer codecs work in F22

On 04/27/2015 01:11 AM, Michael Catanzaro wrote: Telling users to install a F21 repo in F22 sounds like a recipe for disaster. Should we really make it easier to do that? Yes, it's not ideal, but I'm willing to close my nose and just do what's needed if it gets us happier users. You are

Re: nettle, gnutls: soname version bump in rawhide

On 04/27/2015 03:56 PM, Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos wrote: Hello, Next week I plan to update nettle to 3.1.1 and gnutls to 3.4.0 in rawhide. That would require a recompilation of the packages that depend on them. Any objections? My concern is that there's probably a lot of 3rd party apps that

Removing packages that have broken dependencies in F22 tree

Hi all, In two weeks we will be entering the F22 Final Freeze. At that point, Fedora release engineering retires any packages that still have broken dependencies in the F22 tree. Based on today's Branched report [1], we still have a number of unfixed packages with broken dependencies (package

Re: Making 3rd party gstreamer codecs work in F22

On 04/26/2015 08:53 PM, Andreas Tunek wrote: Also, there are bugs for gstreamer/totem (like https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1186028), wouldn't your packages possibly introduce more problems like that? That's something completely unrelated. I am not very familiar with the codec

Re: F-22 Branched report: 20150425 changes

Looking at today's broken deps report, the packages below are already fixed and are just waiting for karma in Bodhi. Would be great if some people could upkarma them so that they can be moved to stable: [avro] avro-mapred-1.7.5-9.fc22.noarch requires hadoop-mapreduce

Making 3rd party gstreamer codecs work in F22

Hi, It turns out that some of the 3rd party repos that ship additional gstreamer codecs have been lagging behind and aren't ready for F22. At this point it's unclear if they'll manage to put out any recompiled F22 packages in time of our GA release. The main issue that users run into with

Re: hibernation support - lack of distro-wide coordination between systemd, dracut, anaconda, pm-utils and maybe more?

On 03/30/2015 11:08 AM, Richard Hughes wrote: On 30 March 2015 at 07:57, Till Maas opensou...@till.name wrote: - provides hibernation support via systemctl hibernate, which is also what pm-hibernate does (why do we have two tools for the same core task?) pm-hibernate should

Re: A proposal for Fedora updates

On 03/27/2015 01:59 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote: We could drop drpms? Do they have to be generated at the same time as the normal push? Could maybe do a push, sync it to mirrors, and then a separate process runs and generates drpms and syncs them out to mirrors separately afterwards? This would

Re: Texlive packaging (Was: A proposal for Fedora updates)

On 03/27/2015 05:49 PM, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: KL == Kalev Lember kalevlem...@gmail.com writes: KL If texlive packaging is causing issues with update pushes, could KL maybe ask the texlive maintainers to rework the packaging? The texlive packaging is basically the way they were

Re: A proposal for Fedora updates

On 03/27/2015 05:22 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote: However, I'll note that the recent texlive updates were security as well. ;) If texlive packaging is causing issues with update pushes, could maybe ask the texlive maintainers to rework the packaging? Right now texlive has a 16 MB (!) spec file,

Re: GNOME 3.16.0 megaupdate

On 03/23/2015 10:17 AM, Kalev Lember wrote: Hi all, Finally, the long wait is over and the 3.16.0 release is here! Or almost over, first we have to get those pesky tarballs out upstream and builds done downstream. :) ... and it's now in F22 updates-testing. Testing and karma appreciated

GNOME 3.16.0 megaupdate

Hi all, Finally, the long wait is over and the 3.16.0 release is here! Or almost over, first we have to get those pesky tarballs out upstream and builds done downstream. :) Upstream has been in hard code freeze since the 3.15.92 release last week, so this week's release shouldn't have a lot of

Re: Some lua packages are broken in f22

On 03/20/2015 02:31 PM, Bastien Nocera wrote: Seen this as well. Coincidentally, I looked at lua earlier today to fix another package, and there's what I found: quvi is broken: ** (info:11777): CRITICAL **: [_chk_script_ident] /usr/share/libquvi-scripts/0.9/common/quvi/youtube.lua:109:

Re: GNOME 3.15.92 megaupdate

On 03/16/2015 01:30 PM, Kalev Lember wrote: GNOME 3.15.92 release is this week and I'll take care of handling the megaupdate for F22. It made it to updates-testing now, as of a few moments ago. Testing, bug reports (in bugzilla) and karma (in the ticket below) are all much welcome! https

GNOME 3.15.92 megaupdate

Hi all, GNOME 3.15.92 release is this week and I'll take care of handling the megaupdate for F22. If you are doing any builds that should be included in the megaupdate, please use 'fedpkg build --target f22-gnome'; I'll pick up the builds in the side tag for the megaupdate. Also, the usual

Re: GNOME 3.15.91 megaupdate

On 03/02/2015 11:41 AM, Kalev Lember wrote: I'm running point on the 3.13.91 builds and will submit them as a single megaupdate in Bodhi later this week. ... and it's in updates-testing now! Grab it while it's fresh and leave karma in the Bodhi ticket. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates

GNOME 3.15.91 megaupdate

Hi all, It's that time of the year again: GNOME 3.15.91 beta release is coming out [1] this week while we're deep in the Alpha freeze in the Fedora land. I'm running point on the 3.13.91 builds and will submit them as a single megaupdate in Bodhi later this week. If you are helping with

Re: Removing packages that have broken dependencies in F21 tree

On 11/13/2014 02:20 PM, Kalev Lember wrote: To avoid that, I'll file a FESCo ticket next Monday to approve dropping the following packages, unless they get fixed first: I've filed the ticket now: https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1368 In addition, 3 broken dependencies have pending fixes

Re: Geting back a package to a previous version

On 11/16/2014 04:19 PM, Ismael Olea wrote: I need to get back to htmlparser 1.5 (from current 1.6 one) due a bug with OmegaT[1]. OmegaT is the only package requiring htmlparser (checked with repoquery) so I assume the change is safe. My only doubt is what is the better practice to do this.

Re: Removing packages that have broken dependencies in F21 tree

On 11/15/2014 03:02 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote: Kalev Lember wrote: I would like to remove the packages that still have broken dependencies in the F21 tree. Please check for packages requiring those broken packages, and transitively packages requiring packages requiring those broken packages

Re: Removing packages that have broken dependencies in F21 tree

On 11/15/2014 11:52 AM, Till Maas wrote: On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 03:20:03PM +0200, Kalev Lember wrote: To avoid that, I'll file a FESCo ticket next Monday to approve dropping the following packages, unless they get fixed first: I can do the mass retirement if there is a final list

Re: Removing packages that have broken dependencies in F21 tree

On 11/14/2014 02:15 PM, Vít Ondruch wrote: Dne 13.11.2014 v 14:20 Kalev Lember napsal(a): rubygem-linecache19 rubygem-ruby-debug-base19 Removing this two will break rubygem-ruby-debug19, so you should remove it as well (unless maintainer fixes them, which does not appear to be the case

Removing packages that have broken dependencies in F21 tree

Hi, I would like to remove the packages that still have broken dependencies in the F21 tree. This is a followup to https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2014-October/203411.html It makes little sense to ship something that cannot even be installed. We're about to enter the final

Re: Removing packages that have broken dependencies in F21 tree

On 11/13/2014 03:33 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 03:20:03PM +0200, Kalev Lember wrote: transifex Huh?? If this is the package I'm thinking of, it's pretty important to many other packages. It depends on python-django14 that was removed a while back and nobody

Re: Schedule for Wednesday's FESCo Meeting (2014-11-05)

On 11/05/2014 04:21 PM, Richard Hughes wrote: On 5 November 2014 00:47, Kalev Lember kalevlem...@gmail.com wrote: If you would like to add something to this agenda, you can reply to this e-mail Can we turn off updates-testing for future betas? It's hard to test the PackageKit-cached

Summary/Minutes from today's FESCo Meeting (2014-11-05)

=== #fedora-meeting: FESCO (2014-11-05) === Meeting started by kalev at 18:01:59 UTC. The full logs are available at http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2014-11-05/fesco.2014-11-05-18.01.log.html . Meeting summary

Schedule for Wednesday's FESCo Meeting (2014-11-05)

== Meeting time change == Note, this week the meeting time is changed from 1700UTC to 1800UTC now that both Europe and the US have changed DST. Following is the list of topics that will be discussed in the FESCo meeting Wednesday at 18:00UTC in #fedora-meeting on irc.freenode.net. To convert

Re: upcoming libtool rebase (2.4.2 ~ 2.4.3)

On 10/29/2014 03:20 PM, Pavel Raiskup wrote: Libtool upstream was able to cut the new release! Thanks Pavel for dealing with this! While you are at this, any chance you could try convincing upstream to add /usr/lib64 to the list of standard libdirs, to avoid madness like

Re: Bumping python-requests in f20?

On 10/23/2014 10:57 PM, Ralph Bean wrote: On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 01:16:29PM -0700, Ed Marshall wrote: Is it API-compatible? Not exactly https://github.com/kennethreitz/requests/blob/master/HISTORY.rst#230-2014-05-16 I would personally say no to updating libraries to incompatible versions.

Re: LLVM 3.5 rebase

On 10/21/2014 10:37 AM, Sergio Pascual wrote: Just a question. If I retire the package in F21, will it affect the F20 F21 upgrade path for those who have python-llvmpy installed? I mean, you upgrade, there is a new llvm 3.5, but you have python-llvpmy that requires llvm 3.4 and... fedup

Re: LLVM 3.5 rebase

On 10/20/2014 04:19 PM, Adam Jackson wrote: On Fri, 2014-10-17 at 19:16 +0200, Sergio Pascual wrote: 2014-10-17 16:00 GMT+02:00 Peter Robinson pbrobin...@gmail.com: So I'm OK with retiring python-llvmpy if a patch doesn't appear soon. I would be too, but I'm going to want 3.5 in F21, and

Re: comps multimedia group: switch to gstreamer1 default?

On 10/19/2014 05:10 PM, Rex Dieter wrote: I see comps' multimedia group still defaults to installing gstreamer-0.10 plugins (with gstreamer1 conditional). Any comments about switching this the other way around? Possible comps-f22.xml.in patch attached. If I'd noticed earlier, I'd have

Broken dependencies in F21 (was: Re: F-21 Branched report: 20141015 changes)

Hi all, We seem to have a number of broken dependencies in F21 that have gone unfixed for a quite some time. Not sure what's up with them; the maintainers are supposed to get daily notifications to make sure these don't go unnoticed. Does anyone have ideas how to deal with these packages? I

Re: Broken dependencies in F21

On 10/16/2014 02:40 PM, Kalev Lember wrote: [gnome-python2-desktop] gnome-python2-metacity-2.32.0-18.fc21.armv7hl requires libmetacity-private.so.0 And replying to my own mail, this should be fixed with: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/gnome-python2-desktop-2.32.0-20.fc21

Re: Broken dependencies in F21

On 10/16/2014 06:16 PM, Antonio Trande wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 [freesteam] freesteam-ascend-2.1-6.20140724svn753.fc21.armv7hl requires libascend.so.1 https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2014-August/201840.html Likely fixed by

Re: Summary/Minutes from today's FESCo meeting (2014-10-15 at 17UTC)

On 10/15/2014 09:32 PM, Jerry James wrote: On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 12:54 PM, Kevin Fenzi ke...@scrye.com wrote: * #1350 Updates Policy should require inter-dependent packages be submitted together (nirik, 18:15:37) * LINK: https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1350 (nirik, 18:15:38)

Re: New hardware for Retrace Server

On 10/15/2014 06:02 PM, Michal Toman wrote: Hi everybody, we have just replaced the old (and slow :)) host running Retrace Server and ABRT server with a new one. The most significant changes for users are: - Retracing now runs in memory, which means faster generating of backtraces (by an

Re: Proposal: Increasing application icon sizes to 64px

]; then # One or more of the files had a syntax error exit 1 fi exit 0 - ... and the redhat-rpm-config patch: From d5f57dc742e7b71b5da7b7b2ecea3b30b155bed2 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Kalev Lember kalevlem...@gmail.com Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2014 12:13:01 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] Run desktop file

Re: Proposal: Increasing application icon sizes to 64px

On 10/01/2014 03:07 PM, Björn Persson wrote: Kalev Lember kalevlem...@gmail.com wrote: # If no desktop files are installed, return immediately if ! ls -A $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/usr/share/applications/ 2/dev/null; then exit 0 fi That tests whether the directory exists, not whether it contains

Re: Intent to update libinfinity to 0.6.1 (soname bump)

On 09/26/2014 08:27 PM, Till Maas wrote: On Sat, Sep 20, 2014 at 04:00:36PM +0200, Kalev Lember wrote: What are your opinions? gedit-collaboration should probably be retired in F21+. It's largely unmaintained upstream and doesn't work with latest gedit anyway. Nacho, any opinions

Re: GNOME 3.14.0 megaupdate

On 09/22/2014 02:57 PM, Kalev Lember wrote: Here we are, final 3.14.0 this week! ... and it just made it to updates-testing now: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-11723/ Thanks to everyone who pitched in with builds! -- Kalev -- devel mailing list devel

Re: Proposal: Increasing application icon sizes to 64px

On 09/26/2014 12:19 PM, Richard Hughes wrote: At the moment applications have to provide an icon = 32x32px in size to be included in the AppStream metadata and shown in the software center. This is *tiny* on a HiDPI screen, so should I mandate that all applications ship a 64x64 (and ideally,

Re: Proposal: Increasing application icon sizes to 64px

On 09/26/2014 02:23 PM, Richard Hughes wrote: When to warn them? In rpmbuild? In the koji logs no human ever reads? You can get this kind of warning now, if you BR: libappstream-glib and then do a: %check DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT appstream-util check-root ...but this requires the packager

Re: Proposal: Increasing application icon sizes to 64px

On 09/26/2014 02:39 PM, Richard Hughes wrote: On 26 September 2014 13:36, Kalev Lember kalevlem...@gmail.com wrote: An option would be to add libappstream-glib to the minimal koji buildroot and run the check automatically for every package that's built in koji. If you know how to do

Re: Latest F-21 updates cause non-booting system on some Haswel systems + workaround

On 09/26/2014 09:16 PM, Josh Boyer wrote: The microcode_ctl package that added this update was karma'd out. So it shouldn't be in updates-testing any longer, which will help mitigate how wide spread it is. No, it's still available in the updates-testing repository. Being karma'd out doesn't

Re: How to handle upgrades to Fedora 21

On 09/24/2014 06:16 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 There has been some discussion in various forums lately about how we will handle fedup upgrades from Fedora 20 to Fedora 21 products. Several suggestions have been made that warrant discussion:

GNOME 3.14.0 megaupdate

Hi all, Here we are, final 3.14.0 this week! Same deal as with the 3.13.92 update last week: use 'fedpkg build --target f21-gnome' for builds or alternatively list your builds in the spreadsheet and I'll pick them up for the megaupdate.

Re: Intent to update libinfinity to 0.6.1 (soname bump)

On 09/20/2014 02:10 PM, Till Maas wrote: On Sat, Aug 30, 2014 at 09:40:05AM +0200, Till Maas wrote: I would like to update libinfinity to 0.6.1 where possible. I prepared a copr build at: https://copr.fedoraproject.org/coprs/till/gobby05/ I did not yet test whether the gedit or kte plugins

GNOME 3.13.92 megaupdate

Hi all, This week brings us the GNOME 3.13.92 release and I'm coordinating the builds and the megaupdate in Bodhi. Same thing as two weeks ago: I'll pick up any builds from the f21-gnome target (you can see the builds in there with 'koji list-tagged f21-gnome'); use 'fedpkg build --target

Re: GNOME 3.13.91 megaupdate

On 09/01/2014 12:40 PM, Kalev Lember wrote: I'm running point on the 3.13.91 builds and will submit it as a single megaupdate in Bodhi later this week. The megaupdate is out now and available in updates-testing. I'd appreciate testing and feedback at https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates

GNOME 3.13.91 megaupdate

Hi all, It's that time of the year again, Fedora is in the Alpha freeze and all updates have to go through Bodhi and get proper testing. Today is also the tarball day for the GNOME 3.13.91 beta release [1]. I'm running point on the 3.13.91 builds and will submit it as a single megaupdate in

Welcome Michael Catanzaro

Hi all, Just a quick note to welcome our newest contributor, Michael Catanzaro. I've just sponsored him to the packager group. Michael is very active upstream in GNOME and does a lot of work on GNOME games suite. His first Fedora package, qqwing, is related to this: it's a library required for

Re: fedora-release-$PRODUCT, /etc/issue, /etc/os-release, Per-Product Configs and more!

On 07/10/2014 05:22 PM, Matthew Miller wrote: On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 07:04:21AM -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote: http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/teams/server-wg/server-wg.2014-02-25-16.00.html That's why I said the *specific* netinstall he was asking for. The Fedora Server netinstall wouldn't

Re: Handling package conflicts caused by arch specific doc files

On 07/03/2014 01:05 PM, Reindl Harald wrote: /home/builduser/rpmbuild/RPMS: total 44K drwxr-xr-x 2 builduser builduser 4.0K 2014-06-30 17:09 noarch drwxr-xr-x 2 builduser builduser 36K 2014-07-02 22:44 x86_64 Thanks, this actually backs up what I claimed -- that it's uncommon to build i686

Re: Handling package conflicts caused by arch specific doc files

On 07/02/2014 03:15 PM, Ankur Sinha wrote: I was wondering if there's a standard way of solving package conflicts that arise from arch specific doc files. An example is here: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=565676 The conflict is because the docs are generated during the build,

Re: libgcrypt soname bump in rawhide

On 07/02/2014 05:13 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote: This is not an official solution, but I am now providing a COPR for Rawhide installs that provides a compatibility library for libgcrypt. That's awesome, but can we get this in rawhide proper instead? I'd be happy to help get this through the

Re: libgcrypt soname bump in rawhide

On 07/02/2014 05:24 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 07/02/2014 11:22 AM, Stephen Gallagher wrote: On 07/02/2014 11:19 AM, Kalev Lember wrote: On 07/02/2014 05:13 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote: This is not an official solution, but I am now

Re: libgcrypt soname bump in rawhide

On 07/02/2014 06:11 PM, Christopher Meng wrote: On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 12:03 AM, Kalev Lember kalevlem...@gmail.com wrote: Anyone here interested in maintaining a libgcrypt compat package for F21 lifetime? I'd be happy to help sort out packaging and get this through the review process. Have

Re: repodata - xz

On 06/20/2014 03:19 AM, poma wrote: f20: [...] *primary.sqlite.bz22.7 M *primary.xml.gz1.3 M rawhide: [...] *primary.sqlite.xz17 M *primary.xml.gz 10 M Anyone know why the rawhide metadata size is an order of magnitude bigger than in F20? --

Re: Proposal: time to set up the fedora-release-{cloud, workstation, server} subpackages

On 06/19/2014 02:11 AM, Dennis Gilmore wrote: On Wed, 18 Jun 2014 16:55:02 -0500 Jon jdisn...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 3:15 PM, Matthew Miller mat...@fedoraproject.org wrote: I suggest that we have fedora-release-{workstation,server,cloud} packages. I had originally suggested

Re: Proposal: time to set up the fedora-release-{cloud, workstation, server} subpackages

On 06/18/2014 10:15 PM, Matthew Miller wrote: [snip] I also suggest that /etc/os-release be switched using the alternatives system (http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Alternatives), with the variant in either the VERSION field (VERSION=21 (Cloud)) or a new os-release field which we

Re: Adding pkg-config not provided by upstream when packaging a library?

On 06/15/2014 11:32 PM, Eric Smith wrote: Since there are sixteen variants of the library, I am providing sixteen corresponding pkg-config files. When another program uses the library, by using pkg-config in their Makefile (or other build system), it will ensure that they are getting the

Slipping F21 (was: Schedule for Wednesday's FESCo Meeting (2014-06-11))

On 06/11/2014 04:37 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote: I forgot to open a ticket over the last week, but the Server WG has identified that completion of its core task (the Server Role API) is likely to need a little extra time. This is a blocker to release, so we figured it would be best to ask

Re: update of ipython in rawhide

On 05/23/2014 11:01 PM, Thomas Spura wrote: Dear maintainers of dependent packages of ipython, I will update python-ipython in rawhide next week on Friday to version 2.1.0. This will be shortly before the mass rebuilt on 6/6 [2]. Any chance you could push this now? The ipython that's

<    1   2   3   4   5   6   7   >