On Thu, 16 Jul 2015 17:53:31 +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
One thing which I find very annoying when creating new packages is the
need to use bare rpmbuild commands. I find the split between
~/rpmbuild/{SPECS,SOURCES} anachronistic (*), and much prefer the
fedpkg / distgit
On Wed, 15 Jul 2015 21:53:46 +0200, Till Maas wrote:
The email is hard to understand. It seems it looks at a dependency tree
and somehow lists any leaf package maintainers in an unsorted list of
dependencies.
What is your proposal to display the information?
To display the known
On Wed, 15 Jul 2015 11:05:40 -0400, Przemek Klosowski wrote:
I do understand where you're coming from: the Fedora workflow is quite
complicated
What exactly do you find quite complicated?
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_Review_Process
... and learning it sometimes feels like drinking
mschwendt: rubygem-rgen
First time I hear about that package as I have nothing to do with it.
Pkgdb says skottler is the maintainer.
The email is hard to understand. It seems it looks at a dependency tree
and somehow lists any leaf package maintainers in an unsorted list of
dependencies.
On Tue, 14 Jul 2015 12:04:13 +0200, Thomas Woerner wrote:
On 07/14/2015 12:40 AM, opensou...@till.name wrote:
prelink jakub, mjw60 weeks ago
...
twoerner: prelink
There seems to be a bug in your script ...
No, what it tries to tell you is
On Sun, 12 Jul 2015 08:58:37 -0500, Rex Dieter wrote:
I like to think of being a sponsor as an exciting opportunity to shepherd
new contributors to fedora.
Quick approval of an account based on reviewing a single tiny package
is not an option for me anymore. I've done that before. I've been
On Sat, 11 Jul 2015 17:40:11 -0700, Les Howell wrote:
I talk about all this because when you have someone who is interested,
and even motivated enough to get involved, where does one go to learn
the accepted techniques and support systems as a total newbie to the
process? Do you have a
On Sun, 12 Jul 2015 09:53:23 +0100, Jonathan Underwood wrote:
What I'm getting here is that you have a very clear aspirations and
expectations of what activities a new contributor should be engaging
in. The questions I think are interesting are:
a) Are we making these expectations clear
On Sun, 12 Jul 2015 11:54:47 -0600, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
On 11 July 2015 at 16:09, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Sat, 11 Jul 2015 11:45:13 -0600, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
and I will probably also find that those
packages have 'accepted' differentiation because no one wants to get
On Fri, 10 Jul 2015 17:24:26 -0600, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
This is a vicious cycle. A lot of sponsors are burnt out on trying to
deal with new people who don't seem to have a clue.
Laziness, lack of activity, lack of interest, sloppy packaging,
dumping-ground/fire'n'forget mentality,
On Sat, 11 Jul 2015 19:44:39 +0200, Haïkel wrote:
@Stephan: this is hardly readable, I don't what is quoted and what's your
answer.
Claws Mail has no trouble displaying the message. It's a multipart/mixed
encoded message with several parts. One is text/plain and well-formatted.
Hint, hint. ;-)
On Sat, 11 Jul 2015 11:45:13 -0600, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
I agree that lowering hurdles is not good and I don't want to lower
hurdles, I want to fix broken ones.
1) Parts of reviews come across as arbitrary nitpicks. You put a
package into 3 different reviewers.. you will get 3
On Sat, 11 Jul 2015 14:37:05 -0400, Ben Rosser wrote:
I don't really want to turn this thread into a why didn't I get sponsored
sooner? thread (and in fact, looking back, I'd guess not linking the two
informal reviews I did wasn't a good thing). But since I brought it up...
On Fri, 10 Jul 2015 14:31:52 +0100, Jonathan Underwood wrote:
Hi,
Today I happened to look at this page:
http://fedoraproject.org/PackageReviewStatus/NEEDSPONSOR.html
from which I can see we have potentially on the order of 100 new
potential contributors to Fedora whose efforts we're
On Fri, 10 Jul 2015 15:25:05 -0400, Ben Rosser wrote:
Speaking as someone who relatively recently went through the process though
(and whose package(s) sat in the review tracker for two years): motivation
is hard to come by when it looks like you're not going to get sponsored
because (you
On Mon, 29 Jun 2015 20:32:46 +0200, Reindl Harald wrote:
I've read the rest of the thread, but note that rpm -qa based queries
piped
to xargs rpm -e still work fine for a package removal task like this
that may be true but you hardly can sell DNF as improvement if you need
such
On Mon, 29 Jun 2015 12:12:57 +0200, Germano Massullo wrote:
What is wrong with DNF's regular expression
# dnf remove *debuginfo*.fc20.x86_64
? I am on F22 but I have a lot packets that should match that regular
expression, but dnf does not find them.
I also tried to add some escape chars
On Tue, 09 Jun 2015 11:18:06 +0200, Jakob Hirsch wrote:
Hi,
I just upgraded to F22 and noticed, that mate-dialogs was uninstalled
and cannot be reinstalled due to mate-desktop having an Obsoletes entry
for it. The corresponding changelog entry is quite short:
* Sat Jul 12 2014 Wolfgang
On Thu, 04 Jun 2015 12:27:52 +0200, Antonio Trande wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Hi all,
is there something wrong with my commit or with koji?
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/getfile?taskID=9943933name=root.logoffset=-4000
DEBUG util.py:452: Executing
On Tue, 26 May 2015 16:33:19 +0100, Richard Hughes wrote:
http://alt.fedoraproject.org/pub/alt/screenshots/f22/matrix.html
It kinda sucks that you list a No keywords in .desktop file warning
for almost all packages even if they meet the packaging guidelines and
the specific requirements of the
On Wed, 27 May 2015 12:47:04 +0100, Richard Hughes wrote:
It's not only the green applications that make the cut, the amber
ones go in too.
Okay. Glad to hear we're not supposed to fix something like that
post release.
Having keywords makes the search functionality much
better, but isn't
On Wed, 27 May 2015 22:39:30 +0200, Marcin Juszkiewicz wrote:
F22 got released so I upgraded my machine from F22 to rawhide. But as
usual it meant rebuilding rpmfusion packages (as they do not support
rawhide).
All went quite good. Except installing:
Error: package
On Wed, 20 May 2015 20:50:10 + (UTC), notifications fedoraproject org wrote:
Packages: soundconverter
Function: change_mime_type
Firtst occurrence: 2015-05-20
Type: python
Count:10
URL:
On Mon, 04 May 2015 18:55:50 +0200, Reindl Harald wrote:
fixing the reasons for fedora-easy-karma timeouts most of the time would
in general help for karma - i guess i am not the only one having
updates-testing and sometimes koji-repos enabled and refuse to seek for
the installed packages
On Wed, 29 Apr 2015 10:52:09 +0200, Jan Synacek wrote:
I'm trying to give one of my packages (openldap) to another developer,
but the online tool keeps saying that User is not in the packager
group, which I believe is not true, because he is in the same Fedora
groups as I am. Where can I
On Fri, 24 Apr 2015 05:14:27 -0400, Felix Miata wrote:
Why does this bug exist only in Fedora, not in openSUSE or Mageia or *buntu?
All my systems are multiboot, so only a select very few are on UTC. None that
are on UTC have Fedora installed. This means every Fedora boot takes about
twice as
On Sun, 26 Apr 2015 20:53:12 +0200, Andreas Tunek wrote:
I of course do not want to tell anyone what to spend their time on,
but do you not think that this effort would be better spent helping
the 3rd party repos (rpmfusion) getting ready for F22 than building
compatibility layers?
Well,
It's some time since I've had to submit a koji buildroot override via
the bodhi web interface. It has become much more slower. First of all,
the admin.fedoraproject.org server answers slower. And the koji wait-repo
command has yet to end.
What is the current estimate on how long it takes for
On Tue, 24 Mar 2015 06:15:41 -0400 (EDT), Jan Silhan wrote:
I get the same result from dnf search and yum search. It wasn't found
in package name nor summary so it's searched in description.
IMO, it ought to search in filelists either by default or when specifying
the all argument (which is
On Sun, 22 Mar 2015 21:10:05 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
# dnf search libtoolize
Using metadata from Sat Mar 21 15:38:26 2015
= Matched: libtoolize
==
libedit.x86_64 : The NetBSD Editline library
libedit.i686 : The NetBSD Editline
# dnf search libtoolize
Using metadata from Sat Mar 21 15:38:26 2015
= Matched: libtoolize ==
libedit.x86_64 : The NetBSD Editline library
libedit.i686 : The NetBSD Editline library
D'oh!
It's a false positive, because the word libtoolized
On Mon, 16 Mar 2015 12:32:41 +0100, Michael Šimáček wrote:
Configurations shipped with current mock have keepcache=1 by default, so
the redownloading shouldn't happen if you have yum_cache enabled. But if
you use different configs than the default ones, you'll need to adjust
the config
On Thu, 22 Jan 2015 15:15:48 +0100, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
I just spoke with two members of DNF team about default usage of DNF in mock.
I would like to share outcomes of this
meeting.
First I would like to state that you can already optionally use DNF in your
mock by setting:
On Tue, 10 Mar 2015 14:49:28 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
Right now, many issues/problems are interacting and affecting packages
simultanously, which occasionally render fixing these issues quite
complicated.
So far I've hit:
- GCC-5.0
- Hardening
- boost upgrade
- ImageMagick
-
On Sun, 08 Mar 2015 13:44:26 -0500, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
On 03/08/2015 07:48 AM, Björn Persson wrote:
· Files under /usr/share/doc are automatically tagged as documentation
files even if %doc isn't used. Files under /usr/share/licenses are not
automatically tagged as license files,
On Fri, 06 Mar 2015 12:49:12 +0300, Pavel Alexeev wrote:
Hello.
ImageMagick itself built in rawhide.
just go ahead an rebuild pfstools, please. I'll intervene only in the
case
something goes wrong.
First attempt fails [1] with:
pfsinimgmagick.opfsoutimgmagick.o: : InIn
On Sun, 1 Mar 2015 23:28:48 +0100, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:
I do use it from time to time, but I'm currently on F21.
Me too, but the Copr builds of 3.6 feature a repo for F21, too.
The Qt UI is not a port, but more of a rewrite/redesign. Various dialogs
look very different.
I'd
On Mon, 2 Mar 2015 09:20:07 +1100, Dan Fruehauf wrote:
Is it possible to compile audacious on its own and then supply gtk3 and qt
packages on top of it?
No. First of all, Qt has always been more than a GUI-library. It's a C++
development framework, and Audacious' core libs will likely use it
On Fri, 20 Feb 2015 15:36:11 -0500, Ralph Bean wrote:
If you encounter bugs or have requests for enhancement, as always please do
file them[6][7][8]..
Done. Thanks for a premature April Fool's prank. ;)
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Audacious 3.6 has been released.
This is another chance for interested people to join and help deciding how
to proceed with the Fedora packages. I'm still looking for co-maintainers,
too, especially some who have an opinion on how to package it.
I've been building pre-releases for it via Fedora
On Tue, 17 Feb 2015 18:13:23 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 02/17/2015 05:59 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 05:39:48PM +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
Why not to create a new repository with reduced policy as
Stephen proposed with the one-way dependency rule (between
On Tue, 24 Feb 2015 20:22:37 +, Sérgio Basto wrote:
Correction:
Bug 1085761 looks like the main bug, should we marked bug 1185565 was
duplicated of 1085761 ?
The answer is found in: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/1185565#c2
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Also the -02-18 one for Rawhide x86_64 Live Workstation, which started
fine and managed to install, too. Haven't rebooted yet, though.
It has been broken already by the first bunch of updates (62 or 63 pkgs).
Oh no! Something has gone wrong [Logout] prior to GDM greeting screen
coming up.
--
On Wed, 18 Feb 2015 22:24:47 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
Today's - 2015-02-18 - F22 nightlies seem not to have any anaconda
showstoppers, so for now probably using one of them is the best way to
install F22.
Thanks! Fetched it.
Also the -02-18 one for Rawhide x86_64 Live Workstation,
fedup --network rawhide --nogpgcheck
- a bit of progress
- it downloads ~1500 packages
- it lists a screen full of packages without update
- I reboot with the added boot menu entry
upgrade prep complete, switching root
failed to log coredump - connection refused
An early end. Nothing
1. fedup --network rawhide : failed with a missing image?
Why doesn't it work by default?
2. yum distro-sync with rawhide repo enabled : first encountered
upgrade path violation problems, unresolved deps. Then after enabling
only the rawhide repo, it locked up hard after updating ~900
On Tue, 17 Feb 2015 09:55:37 -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
1. fedup --network rawhide : failed with a missing image?
Why doesn't it work by default?
Strange. The mirrormanager mirrorlist for images looks good here, and
the images look fine. Ah... it's because they are not signed.
|
On Tue, 17 Feb 2015 17:19:38 +0800, Christopher Meng wrote:
These below are packages I seldom use, feel free to comaintain them:
NetPIPE
PyMca
roxterm
autoconf-archive
freetalk
unhide
firehol
npth
nPth - The New Pth library : isn't that one of the forks of pth to be
developed more
On Tue, 17 Feb 2015 18:13:29 +0800, Christopher Meng wrote:
nPth - The New Pth library : isn't that one of the forks of pth to be
developed more actively?
It isn't used by any package yet according to repoquery.
It has been imported just 23 months ago. Are you aware of any anything
On Mon, 16 Feb 2015 17:03:51 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
So, for my counterproposal:
I propose that packagers with a sufficient level of trust (packager
sponsors, provenpackagers, or a new, yet-to-be-defined group (maybe
packagers with at least N packages)) be allowed to import new packages
On Sun, 15 Feb 2015 23:14:33 +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Sun, Feb 15, 2015 at 11:08:55PM +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Sun, 8 Feb 2015 18:17:56 +0100, Marek Polacek wrote:
either package bugs, or GCC bugs. As things stand, just about 19
packages did
not build due to bugs
On Fri, 13 Feb 2015 13:54:59 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
Meanwhile, we've had much more critical vulnerablities in widely used
libs (Remember heartbleed), which all have been quite easy to fix
packaging-wise. IMO, to a great portion, thanks to having mostly banned
static linkage and
On Fri, 13 Feb 2015 17:45:23 -0700, Ken Dreyer wrote:
On Thu, 12 Feb 2015 16:49:13 -0500, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
Ultimately, it's about one thing: Help get more software into Fedora
without scaring people away.
What is the background for this? Who has been scared away?
Here's one
audiofileorphan, ajax, alexl, caillon, caolanm, 1 weeks ago
group::gnome-sig, johnp, mbarnes,
rhughes, rstrode, ssp, xiphmont
I've added myself there, since there are tons of deps on it
On Mon, 9 Feb 2015 10:17:12 -0800, Brian C. Lane wrote:
I'm trying to get the new version of maildrop ready and they split out
unicode support into a new library. The name of their archive is
courier-unicode, but the actual name of the library installed is
libunicode. That's what I picked
Somebody please explain to me the zeitgeist package management model
that is being applied at Fedora. From all the open bugs in bugzilla,
http://bugz.fedoraproject.org/zeitgeist
in none of them there is any activity by those people, who have done
the last builds in the build system. Are these
On Sat, 07 Feb 2015 02:50:05 +0900, Mamoru TASAKA wrote:
Just info:
- Actually even zeitgeist upstream has no or little active development, so
even if Fedora downstream maintainers tries to do something
it can be little expected that these bugs can be fixed:
This is about Rawhide.
The list for F21 is similar, which is especially strange with regard to
any packages that should be marked as dead in dist git already then.
Dead = a dead.package file in dist git exists, but builds of the package
are still found in the repo(s). Package has not been
On Thu, 29 Jan 2015 09:54:40 +0100, Dodji Seketeli wrote:
Indeed. And while we are in the Shameless Plug department, I'd like
to mention the presence of a new tool called 'abidiff'. You can learn
about it at https://sourceware.org/libabigail/manual/abidiff.html.
It's a command line tool
On Thu, 29 Jan 2015 12:50:03 -0300, Carlos Morel-Riquelme wrote:
Hi folks, i've packed a new font, also i've create the rpm and srpm, also i
've installed in my laptop and looks fine, i've read the guidelines for
create the package, but when i run fedora-review i have the error 127 in
mock.
On Thu, 29 Jan 2015 14:01:56 -0300, Carlos Morel-Riquelme wrote:
Thanks guys, Michael a have a question, can i submit the package review or
i need wait that this issues is fixed ?
Using fedora-review is not mandatory but highly recommended for
packaging/reviewing beginners. And it can be very
On Wed, 21 Jan 2015 11:48:55 -0700, Tim Flink wrote:
Taskotron doesn't notice if subpackages have been dropped and cause
unresolvable dependencies because they are not obsoleted anywhere.
This isn't so much something that taskotron's checks missed as it's
something we're not even checking
On Wed, 21 Jan 2015 05:50:35 -0500 (EST), Kamil Paral wrote:
Taskotron doesn't notice if subpackages have been dropped and cause
unresolvable dependencies because they are not obsoleted anywhere.
Yes, depcheck doesn't currently handle that. I've created:
On Sat, 24 Jan 2015 19:42:20 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
In many other cases autoreconf can cause subtile and hard to find
issues. In complex cases, it doesn't work at all.
Especially the former can be troublesome if they don't cause a build
to fail. For example, it can lead to issues such
On Wed, 21 Jan 2015 09:33:31 +0100, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Dne 20.1.2015 v 14:22 Bohuslav Kabrda napsal(a):
1) DNF will be the default package manager for F22 [2], so everything is ok
here.
I really wonder what is the state here. This is on my rawhide:
# dnf remove yum
python3-chardet
On Wed, 21 Jan 2015 19:25:40 -0500, Neal Becker wrote:
I installed kernel* from updates-testing. Now I want to go back to
distro-sync.
Let's try it:
sudo dnf distro-sync kernel*
Error: problem with installed package kernel-3.17.7-300.local.fc21.x86_64.
problem with installed package
Eventually I had taken over
python-html2text
rss2mail (depends on python-feedparser)
and have used them for a long time. Now it's time to move on.
The author of html2text has died two years ago. There are various forks
with different versioning schemes. There's also a new upstream for
Taskotron doesn't notice if subpackages have been dropped and cause
unresolvable dependencies because they are not obsoleted anywhere.
Examples: jogl2-javadoc, miglayout-examples, glusterfs-regression-tests
rubygem-json-doc, rubygem-rake-doc, and more
Yum is broken in the same way. And by
On Thu, 15 Jan 2015 13:23:06 +0100, Tomas Mraz wrote:
I would just open a FESCo ticket to get the package removed from Fedora.
https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1388
Much more interesting would be to learn whether anyone has any ideas on how
to prevent such issues in the future. The
On Fri, 16 Jan 2015 05:59:18 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 01/14/2015 05:06 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Sat, Jan 10, 2015 at 12:43:46PM +0100, drago01 wrote:
Yeah I just delete those mails now days. Its just spam F19 is EOL is
not news that I need to get 1000 times.
Right, clearly,
On Tue, 13 Jan 2015 01:23:36 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
* Last upstream release is from 2007 and the same as offered by Fedora.
Then it's not the Fedora maintainer who is not doing his/her job.
At Fedora, it is _mispackaged_ and untested to begin with. The plugin
packages likely have never
On Mon, 12 Jan 2015 20:41:30 -0500, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
Devel,
I would like to un-retire mumble, but that requires ice.
I've just fixed ice to compile on f21 without much effort.
So I think I'll un-retire ice and mumble and maintain them
unless anyone objects.
Is there any reason
On Sun, 11 Jan 2015 12:32:04 +0100, Thomas Moschny wrote:
2015-01-10 13:04 GMT+01:00 Michael Schwendt:
%exclude is global per spec file, or else you would need to %exclude
a file in _all_ subpackages (in the case when deleting it in %install
would be more convenient anyway). That would
On Sat, 10 Jan 2015 00:27:15 -0600, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
While working on a spec file to cause build failure if new fonts showed
up in a package, I noticed two oddities with the checking for unpackaged
files.
An unpackaged empty directory will not trigger a build failure.
That's an
Big *sigh*.
Guys, this is not funny anymore. Almost as if some people at Fedora try to
test how long one can keep one's temper. Well, this is embarrasing and not
casting a positive light on the Fedora Project package collection:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/460557
Package and software are in
On Sat, 10 Jan 2015 14:44:39 +0100, Matěj Cepl wrote:
I would just go ahead with
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_nonresponsive_package_maintainers
As much sense as this procedure may make in _some_ cases, it has been a
failure for other packagers before. They emerge only to end the
On Sat, 10 Jan 2015 09:51:19 -0600, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
My guess would have
been that %excludes would have been developed specifically for making it
convenient to exclude a directory in the main package that needs to be owned
by a subpackage.
Rather: a quick way to not package a file.
It has happened again. :-/
| This message is a notice that Fedora 19 is now at end of life. Fedora
| has stopped maintaining and issuing updates for Fedora 19. It is
| Fedora's policy to close all bug reports from releases that are no
| longer maintained.
|
| [...]
As I found it odd, that
On Sat, 10 Jan 2015 12:06:10 -0600, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
In this particular case some stuff gets added depending on whether or
not the build process finds all of the fonts that are needed. I wanted
this to fail during build if any were not found,
%check
[ -f
On Fri, 09 Jan 2015 09:40:17 +0200, Yanko Kaneti wrote:
Policy does require you to contact the maintainer
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Getting_a_Fedora_package_in_EPEL It is
quite inappropriate to not have the courtesy to contact the fedora
maintainer first.
I have't seen that
On Wed, 07 Jan 2015 19:14:00 +0100, Sandro Mani wrote:
So what I'm planning to do is to retire the iax package in Fedora, and
have add to the iaxclient package the subpackages -libiax and
-libiax-devel, containing the iaxclient bundled libiax2, with appropriate
Obsoletes: iax 0.2.3
On Sat, 27 Dec 2014 13:03:12 -0500, Sam Varshavchik wrote:
Who else thinks that this part of texlive-base's %preinstall is not really
such a hot idea:
for i in `find /home/*/.texlive* -type d -prune`; do
find $i -name *.fmt -type f | xargs rm -f /dev/null 21
done
This is a violation of
On Tue, 23 Dec 2014 10:57:14 -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
You will need to convince a sponsor to sponsor you.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group?rd=Extras/HowToGetSponsored
Many sponsors like to see you put together a package for review or
'pre'
On Tue, 23 Dec 2014 20:10:08 +0100, Reindl Harald wrote:
Are packages really supposed to put files in /local/?
no - /usr/local/ is admin area - period
True - ignoring the 'period' ;)
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
A package with Fedora packaging bugs that are unhandled for years, e.g.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/668159
Upstream development has stopped, too. As one can see in the %changelog,
it's still the same software since 2009/2010.
In Fedora bugzilla, there is no response. The upstream developer has
On Wed, 19 Nov 2014 21:13:29 +0100, Lorenzo Dalrio wrote:
In my hurry I have swapped Version and Release following exactly the
guidelines you have linked. :-/
Well, a package being tiny does not imply there's nothing to be reviewed.
The top of the executable says
__version__ = '1.2.0'
On Wed, 19 Nov 2014 11:47:30 +0100, Lorenzo Dalrio wrote:
Hello,
I have this trivial package ready to be reviewed
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1165584
I'd be happy to review one in exchange.
We may need to redefine trivial for this one. ;-)
Look:
| Version:
On Wed, 12 Nov 2014 11:53:32 -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
18:03:04 nirik firefox folks removed their hack...
18:03:31 nirik so they use /tmp again in rawhide.
18:04:14 kalev that sounds like a regression
18:04:35 nirik regression?
18:04:46 kalev downloading multi gigabyte files into /tmp would
On Sun, 2 Nov 2014 10:13:10 -0500, Matthew Miller wrote:
Is there any authoritative group at Fedora who wants the product to not
suck like that?
Authoritative? Probably FESCo.
https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1365
Basically, we need to tell every Fedora User that Firefox and Claws
Hello everyone!
See subject line. I wonder whether there is a group of people at Fedora
that could examine issues that let the entire product look bad?
As for the background, it had started with Firefox hardcoding /var/tmp as
its temporary directory. Obviously, starting applications from within
[replies to the list please!]
On Sun, 2 Nov 2014 10:10:57 -0500, you wrote:
As for the background, it had started with Firefox hardcoding /var/tmp as
its temporary directory. Obviously, starting applications from within
Firefox made them run in an environment different than when started on
On Wed, 22 Oct 2014 09:51:36 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 10/21/2014 08:41 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
I'm not sure why koji buildroots aren't busted however, unless it's
somehow the hosts yum (in the case of koji, f20 and copr el6) is doing
things differently?
Well, koji buildroots
On Mon, 20 Oct 2014 10:10:48 -0600, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
So if I mistype 'rm' as rn or rb will lrzsz or rn be installed so that it
does the wrong thing next time? Or is this only some commands? And beyond
removing someone from the wheel group what is the way to turn this off?
Is this
On Thu, 16 Oct 2014 02:32:49 -0700, Moez Roy wrote:
Tripwire fails to build for F21 and Rawhide. Is there a proven
packager out there who has some spare time to submit a fix for this?
Where is the package maintainer?
The non-responsive maintainer procedure ought to get restarted for him,
if
Some confusion here trying to use Fedora's Qt 5 packages, and it seems they
cannot be use quickly.
$ rpm -qa qt5\*|sort
qt5-qtbase-5.3.2-3.fc21.x86_64
qt5-qtbase-devel-5.3.2-3.fc21.x86_64
qt5-qtbase-gui-5.3.2-3.fc21.x86_64
qt5-qtbase-ibase-5.3.2-3.fc21.x86_64
On Thu, 16 Oct 2014 07:24:53 -0500, Rex Dieter wrote:
There are several strategies:
* The bin-qt5 convention is already used by most distributions, so many
applications/tools have adapted to it already. If you're aware of any that
haven't yet, I'd be happy to help produce upstreamable
On Thu, 16 Oct 2014 16:27:57 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
It looks like one could simply prepend
/usr/lib64/qt5/bin
to $PATH to make available the executables, which are renamed to avoid
conflicts with other Qt versions.
There you have your wrapper script:
export
On Thu, 16 Oct 2014 14:40:50 +0200, Kalev Lember wrote:
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
On Wed, 24 Sep 2014 21:36:15 +0200, Till Maas wrote:
Hi,
I noticed that mulitple packages own /etc/bash_completion.d/ even though
it is nowadays part of the filesystem package. From what I read from the
Guidelines, it is not clear to me whether it is prohibited or not.
On Wed, 24 Sep 2014 20:09:51 +0530, Lalatendu Mohanty wrote:
On 09/24/2014 07:42 PM, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
Hello,
the “-p /sbin/ldconfig” syntax triggers a special behavior in RPM /if
the scriptlet is otherwise empty/. In your case, the “%post libs”
scriptlet also actually, surprising
401 - 500 of 1398 matches
Mail list logo
