Re: Licensing change: Audacious - GPLv3 --> BSD

On Mon, 9 Jul 2012 13:10:48 + (UTC), Petr Pisar wrote: > > As of 3.3-beta1, Audacious is now officially under a two-clause BSD > > license (previously GPLv3). Some plugins (separate package) are still > > under other licenses, however. > > How could they have changed the license without askin

Re: How do I check for a package in Rawhide?

On Sat, 7 Jul 2012 21:04:39 +0200, Björn Persson wrote: > Michael Schwendt wrote: > > On Sat, 7 Jul 2012 19:50:41 +0200, Björn Persson wrote: > > > When fedpkg chain-build fails with the message "Unsuccessfully waited > > > 120:09 for GtkAda-2.24.2-1.fc18 to ap

Re: How do I check for a package in Rawhide?

On Sat, 7 Jul 2012 19:50:41 +0200, Björn Persson wrote: > When fedpkg chain-build fails with the message "Unsuccessfully waited 120:09 > for GtkAda-2.24.2-1.fc18 to appear in the f18-build repo", how can I check > later whether the package has appeared yet so that I can build the next > package

Re: Submitting packages while awaiting sponsorship

On Thu, 5 Jul 2012 11:14:53 -0400, Ben Rosser wrote: > Hello all, > > I'm still looking for someone to review my Python package ( > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=823679 ), and then hopefully > sponsor me as a packager- if anyone would be interested in doing either > that would be gr

Licensing change: Audacious - GPLv3 --> BSD

As of 3.3-beta1, Audacious is now officially under a two-clause BSD license (previously GPLv3). Some plugins (separate package) are still under other licenses, however. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: Q: Conflicting -devel packages

On Wed, 04 Jul 2012 23:27:13 +0200, Alec Leamas wrote: > This is about a package BZ #787713. It's standard, C++ library with a > base and -devel package. > > The devel package contains both arch-dependent stuff (*.so) and noarch > headers. *.so in -devel packages never conflict, because %_l

Re: How long can a package be in pending status?

On Sun, 24 Jun 2012 14:09:34 -0300, Sergio Belkin wrote: > Hi, > > Just I am somewhat surprised that I submitted package cdw for testing > and still is in status (I remember in previous updates that in a few > hours it went to testing) . It's not a reproach, only a question, if > something is wro

Re: PATH=/usr/local/bin:/bin:/usr/bin considered harmful

On Fri, 22 Jun 2012 18:16:03 -0400, Sam Varshavchik wrote: > Michael Schwendt writes: > > > > > # whereis ldconfig > > ldconfig: /sbin/ldconfig /usr/sbin/ldconfig > > /usr/share/man/man8/ldconfig.8.gz > > > > /sbin is before /usr/sbin in $PATH. >

Re: PATH=/usr/local/bin:/bin:/usr/bin considered harmful

On Fri, 22 Jun 2012 06:53:09 -0400, Sam Varshavchik wrote: > Michael Schwendt writes: > > > On Fri, 22 Jun 2012 09:50:25 +0100, Mary Ellen Foster wrote: > > > > > I assume this error is also an instance of the same problem: > > > > > > Error: P

Re: PATH=/usr/local/bin:/bin:/usr/bin considered harmful

On Fri, 22 Jun 2012 09:50:25 +0100, Mary Ellen Foster wrote: > I assume this error is also an instance of the same problem: > > Error: Package: 2:samba-common-3.6.5-89.fc17.1.x86_64 (@updates-testing) >Requires: /usr/sbin/ldconfig >Removing: glibc-2.15-37.fc17.i686 (@fedo

Re: .so's in devel packages...

On Tue, 19 Jun 2012 08:39:40 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > > And again, this is not the full story. > > I was trying to keep it simple. The simplified case/explanation is what encourages packagers to misplace .so files. For example, -devel packages that contain .so files but no header files s

Re: FSF address fix and timestamps

On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 13:59:26 -0300, Sergio Belkin wrote: > Hi Fedora community, > > I know that I can fix the new address of sources files with sed > (http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging_tricks#Wrong_FSF_address). I > think that timestamp should not be preserved because it's a change, a > re

Re: .so's in devel packages...

On Mon, 18 Jun 2012 12:25:12 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Mon, 2012-06-18 at 18:23 +0100, Nelson Marques wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > > > I have a doubt regarding the '.so's' in devel packages... From my > > understanding they go in devel packages to allow the installation of > > several pac

Re: .so's in devel packages...

On Mon, 18 Jun 2012 18:23:16 +0100, Nelson Marques wrote: > Hi all, > > > I have a doubt regarding the '.so's' in devel packages... From my > understanding they go in devel packages to allow the installation of > several packages with different versioning > Who defined this? Is this part of

Audacious 3.3-alpha1 in Rawhide

Audacious 3.3-alpha1 will be landing in Rawhide. Compared with previous releases in F-17 (and older) it is API/ABI-incompatible once again. I've had a look at what will be necessary to patch dependencies and will take care of patching and rebuilding in the Fedora package collection as necessary.

Re: upcoming libdb/db4/compat-db reorganization

On Wed, 13 Jun 2012 11:15:08 -0500, Bruno Wolff III wrote: > On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 09:44:37 -0600, >Orion Poplawski wrote: > >On 05/04/2012 12:23 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote: > > > >Rawhide is in bad shape too: > > > >https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_

Re: Releasing ownership of many audio packages (and a little more)

On Tue, 5 Jun 2012 17:47:20 -0500, Jon Ciesla wrote: > >> I'll take this if none of the co-maintainers steps up soon. > >> > > Hi Jon, > > As one of the comaintainers, I have been doing the actual maintaining of > > Hydrogen for the last few years. Do you mind if I take the ownership? > > Certain

Re: Update ImageMagick in Fedora 16

On Tue, 05 Jun 2012 14:05:13 +0400, Pavel Alexeev wrote: > 04.06.2012 22:26, Michael Schwendt написал: > > On Mon, 04 Jun 2012 19:36:29 +0400, Pavel Alexeev wrote: > > > >> Additionally have worth I try read carefully all docs about > >> provenpackager and such up

Re: Update ImageMagick in Fedora 16

On Tue, 05 Jun 2012 13:55:21 +0400, Pavel Alexeev wrote: > Only one other think before I do that. Is it will be needed then > introduce epoch in Fedora 16 IM build to push less version in stable > branch? Could you explain _why_ you think you need to increase the Epoch? Last package in F-16 u

Re: supercat anybody working on it?

estion. > > On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 5:30 AM, Michael Schwendt wrote: > > On Fri, 1 Jun 2012 23:00:29 -0300, Adrian Alves wrote: > >> done I built it, check this out: > >> > >> Spec URL: http://alvesadrian.fedorapeople.org/supercat.spec > > > >

Re: Update ImageMagick in Fedora 16

On Mon, 04 Jun 2012 19:36:29 +0400, Pavel Alexeev wrote: > Additionally have worth I try read carefully all docs about > provenpackager and such updates and have not found how deal with such > versions. It's not provenpackager specific stuff, but found in the basic packaging guidelines: https:

Re: Update ImageMagick in Fedora 16

On Sun, 03 Jun 2012 20:57:01 +0200, Tadej Janež wrote: > For techne (one of the dependent packages which I maintain) you bumped > the release from 0.2.3-2 to 0.2.3-3, which breaks upgrades to F-17 and > rawhide. > Is there a way to revert the change and make a 0.2.3-2.fc16.1 build? Revert the cha

ping Daniel Bruno and Guillermo Gómez

Hello Bruno, hello Guillermo! Are you still alive and well? What's up with dhcp_probe in Fedora? Apparently, it has been unmaintained since its approval: * Review Request: dhcp_probe - Tool for discover DHCP and BootP servers https://bugzilla.redhat.com/624833 CLOSED ERRATA (2010-10-19)

Re: supercat anybody working on it?

On Fri, 1 Jun 2012 23:00:29 -0300, Adrian Alves wrote: > done I built it, check this out: > > Spec URL: http://alvesadrian.fedorapeople.org/supercat.spec Check this out: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:UnownedDirectories And the following page is _not_ just for reviewers: ;-) https://f

Re: Pidgin 2.10.4

On Wed, 30 May 2012 13:06:44 -0500, Jon Ciesla wrote: > On it. If someone else is also, let me know and I'll stop. What's up with the maintainer? Last built the package half a year ago: * http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/packageinfo?packageID=3460 * https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/use

Retired libsidplay in Rawhide

Current situation, F-17: $ repoquery --whatrequires libsidplay audacious-plugins-sid-0:3.2.2-1.fc17.x86_64 gstreamer-plugins-ugly-0:0.10.19-1.fc17.i686 gstreamer-plugins-ugly-0:0.10.19-1.fc17.x86_64 libsidplay-devel-0:1.36.60-5.fc17.i686 libsidplay-devel-0:1.36.60-5.fc17.x86_64 ocp-0

Re: Packaging pyroscope

On Fri, 25 May 2012 13:41:14 +0530, Ankur Sinha wrote: > What worries me is that pyroscope has a "rtorrent-extended" interface, > which is just application of some patches to the original rtorrent > source. It even uses the rtorrent tars, the code isn't forked or > anything. What exactly you plan

Re: Packaging pyroscope

On Fri, 25 May 2012 11:23:59 +0530, Ankur Sinha wrote: > Hey folks, > > I was wondering if anyone's ever considered packaging pyroscope[1] for > Fedora? It adds quite a lot of functionality to rtorrent. > > I've just started looking into it, and the building looks pretty messy. > This is the bu

Re: /usr/sbin/validate clash with /usr/bin/validate

On Wed, 23 May 2012 14:22:35 -0400 (EDT), PW (Paul) wrote: > > I just got caught in having two different "validate" commands in my > path. > > The /usr/bin/validate version is from the dnssec-tools package. It has a > man page and usage info and is a tool to diagnose dnssec lookups. And there's

Re: How to request -devel subpackage?

On Mon, 21 May 2012 14:35:57 +0200, SC (Simone) wrote: > Hello, > > I need the p7zip header files for a package I would like to submit for > review; but p7zip does not include them as it does not provide a > p7zip-devel subpackage. > > http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/packageinfo?packageID=271

Re: Package submission - rubygem-chef and dependencies looking for sponsor

On Sun, 20 May 2012 19:56:30 -0700, JC (Jonas) wrote: > Hello all: > > I've submitted a bunch of package submissions which need a sponsor. Packages aren't sponsored, people are. You may want to pay attention to the yellow box here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Join_the_package_collection_main

Re: New libtiff version in rawhide, requires dependent packages rebuild

On Mon, 07 May 2012 08:07:22 +0200, RC (Ralf) wrote: > On 05/06/2012 06:10 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > > I have pushed libtiff 4.0.1 into rawhide, replacing libtiff 3.9.5. > > This entails a library soname bump and a few small source-level > > incompatibilities, as detailed at > > http://www.remotesensi

Re: upcoming libdb/db4/compat-db reorganization

On Tue, 17 Apr 2012 15:24:17 +0100, PR (Peter) wrote: > On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 3:10 PM, Joe Orton wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 02:21:36PM +0200, Jindrich Novy wrote: > >> So the plan is: > >> 1) remove 4.5, 4.6 and 4.7 from compat-db > >> 2) put 4.8 to compat-db > >> 3) make db4 a dead pack

tilda unmaintained? (was: Re: Examining -static package build timestamps in koji)

On Fri, 04 May 2012 18:30:58 +0200, PM (Petr) wrote: > > 21 link with flex libs<-- flex doesn't change often, though > > I believe that libfl.a hasn't really changed in Fedora at all. It > exports two symbols, totaling something like 10 lines of actual code. > Absence of client rebui

Examining -static package build timestamps in koji

* 40 packages in Rawhide are older than one of their -static BuildRequires. Doesn't mean much. Just curious. Of those 40 packages, 7 link with binutils libs 21 link with flex libs<-- flex doesn't change often, though 3 link with g2clib libs 6 link with hdf libs 3

Re: Proposal for revitalizing the sponsorship process for packaging

On Wed, 02 May 2012 08:55:22 +0200, AL (Alec) wrote: > I sort of like the "submit a provisional spec" approach. It will qualify > the requests, and the requester will get some basic understanding making > future communications with an upcoming packager easier. And, of course, > there will be us

Re: Proposal for revitalizing the sponsorship process for packaging

On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 10:53:45 +0100, NM (Nelson) wrote: > > Potential sponsors either nominate themselves or > > get nominated by somebody else: > > > >  https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_sponsor_a_new_contributor > > My apologies for deviating the thread earlier. I would address this > issue

Re: Proposal for revitalizing the sponsorship process for packaging

On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 19:31:43 +1000, GG (Guido) wrote: > > That's no new responsibilities. Sponsors have always been expected to do > > that. With pkgdb, it requires "watch*" access to the packages. Else > > it requires subscribing to the scm-commits list and filtering by > > username/packagename.

Re: Proposal for revitalizing the sponsorship process for packaging

On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 16:31:59 +1000, GG (Guido) wrote: > To go back to initial proposal of > revitalizing sponsor role, I think it would also be a good thing, > given that we leverage on new possible sponsor responsibilities > (ie, supervise new sponsorees' commits for X time after package > creati

Re: Proposal for revitalizing the sponsorship process for packaging

On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 16:10:53 +0200, SO (Stanislav) wrote: > Quoting Michael Schwendt (2012-04-26 18:36:51) > > So, what has been proposed before (years ago even) is for advanced > > packagers (aka "provenpackagers" or experienced packagers) to lower the > > hurdle a

Re: Fedora release name in the future

On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 14:23:31 +0100, JL (Johannes) wrote: > > Well, I've missed the announcement of this poll. > > Where has it been announced? > > http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2012-April/166087.html I haven't received that mail. I've tracked down the announcement in the list [we

Re: Fedora release name in the future

On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 15:10:45 +0200, AT (Antonio) wrote: > The poll about Fedora release names keeping is terminated > [1]. > > And now ? Well, I've missed the announcement of this

Re: Private-libraries in /usr/lib* - invalid soname.

On Mon, 23 Apr 2012 16:01:16 +0200, AL (Alec) wrote: > I am am a newbie, and although the overall wiki rule is "Be Bold" this > is not really the place for me to be that IMHO. So, I have prepared a > draft in https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Talk:Common_Rpmlint_issues (the > "Discussion" tab). M

Re: Proposal for revitalizing the sponsorship process for packaging

On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 11:37:54 -0500, JLTI (Jason) wrote: > MS> What if there are sponsors with expertise in special areas, who are > MS> available to help'n'sponsor other contributors in such areas only? > > That was intended to be covered by the "assuming there are > sufficient..." language in th

Re: Proposal for revitalizing the sponsorship process for packaging

On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 18:13:52 +0200, AL (Alec) wrote: > But isn't part of the problem that > current process forces people which just are interested in a package to > suddenly discover that they are applying to be packagers? We are in need of _more_ packagers, not less packagers who grab a hundr

Re: Proposal for revitalizing the sponsorship process for packaging

On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 17:32:17 +0200, AL (Alec) wrote: > OT? The question here isn't really what submitters do or don't, isn't > it what we could do to improve the process?. The point is that not all submitters are collaborative, and others don't seek for sponsors actively. In the needsponsor que

Re: Proposal for revitalizing the sponsorship process for packaging

On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 09:20:22 -0500, JLTI (Jason) wrote: > MS> Forcing sponsors to fulfill such criteria is the wrong way IMO. It > MS> may result in even more blanket-approval sponsorships. > > I don't happen to agree, but at some point shouldn't sponsors do > something? Are we talking past each

Re: Proposal for revitalizing the sponsorship process for packaging

On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 15:17:09 +0200, AL (Alec) wrote: > I'm not talking about cooperation in that sense. I'm talking about a > more formalized way for people who want something packaged to find a > packager. As an alternative to force people without informal connections > to become packagers for

Re: Proposal for revitalizing the sponsorship process for packaging

On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 13:59:30 +0200, AL (Alec) wrote: > Still, besides this sad experience, isn't this the kind of cooperation > we should encourage? Now and then those great people with great apps > want their app in Fedora. Instead of saying "Wonderful, welcome", we > send them a list of an ac

Re: Proposal for revitalizing the sponsorship process for packaging

On Wed, 25 Apr 2012 20:08:46 -0400, SG (Stephen) wrote: > On Wed, 2012-04-25 at 22:43 +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote: > > > > Why not just drop the sponsorship process and just raise the barrier of > > entry for the packaging process instead? > > > > Like having to have been a comaintaine

Re: Proposal for revitalizing the sponsorship process for packaging

On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 10:45:53 +0200, MR (Matthias) wrote: > On 26/04/12 09:45, drago01 wrote: > > Well the idea was that a sponsor is a trusted packer so why would he > > "demolish all packages"? > > IMO the bar for being a provenpacker shouldn't be that high. Having > > more manpower (as in people

Re: Proposal for revitalizing the sponsorship process for packaging

On Wed, 25 Apr 2012 17:03:25 -0500, JLTI (Jason) wrote: > For a while now I have been working on a proposal for some changes to > both the way we elevate packagers to sponsors and what (to a small > extent) sponsors actually do. Please note that this is not a proposal > for any changes to how peo

Re: Skychart broken in rawhide and F17, unable to fix

On Sun, 15 Apr 2012 13:43:19 +0200, MV (Mattia) wrote: > I waited for a month, I will wait another week... I don't want to kick > anyone and I'm not completely sure I can be the right person to fully > maintain Lazarus package. But I'm able to do the update this time. > Being co-maintainer would

Re: ImageMagick - [Fedora Update] [comment] xine-lib-1.1.20.1-3.fc17, emacs-24.0.94-3.fc17, calibre-0.8.42-1.fc17, perl-GD-SecurityImage-1.71-3.fc17, techne-0.2.1-4.fc17, gdl-0.9.2-5.fc17, autotrace-

On Fri, 6 Apr 2012 16:57:14 +0200, CF (Christophe) wrote: > On Fri, Apr 06, 2012 at 07:27:31AM -0600, Orion Poplawski wrote: > > Suggestions? I'm tempted to pushed this to stable so that broken > > deps emails start going out to get people to do the needed rebuilds. > > > > Or perhaps someone in

Re: help updating sheepdog in F17

On Wed, 04 Apr 2012 13:40:52 +0200, AL (Alec) wrote: > >>https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-4877 > >> Also, voting +1 on your own updates is being frowned upon. Even more so, > >> if the stable karma threshold is just 1. We assume the update submitter > >> is happy with the s

Re: help updating sheepdog in F17

On Wed, 04 Apr 2012 13:32:39 +0200, FMDN (Fabio) wrote: > Sheepdog update can be done in a separate update. If provenpackager can > make a ticket that would suffice. I don´t/didn´t test sheepdog. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/sheepdog-0.3.0-2.fc17 -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedo

Re: help updating sheepdog in F17

On Wed, 04 Apr 2012 09:23:16 +0200, FMDN (Fabio) wrote: > Hi all, > > with one of the latest updates of corosync, we had to break some > API/ABI. All packages have been rebuilt and they are waiting for updates > to be available. > > I also re-built sheepdog > (http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/

Re: Issue with patches on gdesklets

On Tue, 03 Apr 2012 21:08:53 -0700, LT (Luya) wrote: > Greetings, > > I have an issue rebuilding a gdesklets package using koji. According to > the task: > http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3962388 > > Hunks seemed to be rejected. Can anyone check what went wrong. Thanks in >

Re: Change of kexec-tool ownership in Fedora..

On Tue, 03 Apr 2012 13:30:51 +0800, DY (Dave) wrote: > On 04/03/2012 01:22 PM, Dave Young wrote: > > > On 03/31/2012 02:12 AM, Linda Wang wrote: > > > >> per Fedora team members: > >>> > >>> There is a simple process for this already, using the pkgdb tool, with > >>> documentation on the Fedora

Re: [Bug 789636] [abrt] claws-mail-3.8.0-1.fc16: IMAP -> offline mode ->_int_memalign: Process /usr/bin/claws-mail was killed by signal 11 (SIGSEGV)

On Fri, 30 Mar 2012 09:09:51 -0400, bugzilla wrote: > 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=789636 > > abrt-bot@… changed: > >What|Removed

Re: [Bug 696680] [abrt] claws-mail-3.7.9-2.fc14: _int_malloc: Process /usr/bin/claws-mail was killed by signal 11 (SIGSEGV)

On Fri, 30 Mar 2012 09:08:47 -0400, bugzilla wrote: > 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=696680 > > abrt-bot@… changed: > >What|Removed

Re: package with binaries only in /usr/sbin: rpmlint "no binaries" error, empty debuginfo

On Fri, 30 Mar 2012 00:28:23 -0700, ES (Eric) wrote: > I'm working on packaging HP's LTFS filesystem (which uses fuse), and it > has binaries only in /usr/sbin. rpmlint complains that there are no > binaries, and the debuginfo package is empty. > > [eric@p1 SPECS]$ rpm -qlvp ../RPMS/x86_64/hpl

Re: Broken dependencies: parcellite

On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 13:41:37 +0100, CW (Christoph) wrote: > Am Mittwoch, den 21.03.2012, 18:30 +0100 schrieb Thomas Spura: > > On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 6:02 PM, Christoph Wickert > > wrote: > > > Am Mittwoch, den 21.03.2012, 12:52 + schrieb buildsys: > > >> > > >> parcellite has broken depend

Re: Reminder. Please build ImageMagick dependencies until March 23

On Wed, 21 Mar 2012 16:20:19 -0600, OP (Orion) wrote: > Still would be nice to > be able to strip off the version and .src.rpm, but meh. … | sed 's!-[^-]\+-[^-]\+\.src\.rpm$!!g' -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: Mass deduplication and reassignment of ABRT bugs

On Fri, 16 Mar 2012 16:35:19 +0100, ML (Miroslav) wrote: > If you find a suspicious action, please let us know at > crash-catc...@lists.fedorahosted.org or file a ticket at > https://fedorahosted.org/abrt. That list requires a subscription, so my earlier message had bounced. Here's another susp

Re: Mass deduplication and reassignment of ABRT bugs

> If you find a suspicious action, please let us know at > crash-catc...@lists.fedorahosted.org or file a ticket at > https://fedorahosted.org/abrt. > > [1] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/ABRTBacktraceDeduplication > Well, https://bugzilla.redhat.com/698426#c5 | Backtrace analysis foun

Re: Review Swap: smb4k

On Wed, 07 Mar 2012 23:46:58 +, SB (Sérgio) wrote: > Hi, > I'd like that someone sponsor me, to reinsert smb4k in Fedora. > I have follow upstream and update the package to last stable version. > The .spec is just an update of previous version, so should be easy to > review , or is already r

Re: rawhide/F17 broken dependencies: please stop spamming

On Wed, 22 Feb 2012 17:34:23 +0100, KK (Kevin) wrote: > The reason insight is > orphaned in the first place is because of the indiscriminate retiring of its > dependency (see the mailing list thread announcing the orphaning), the > maintainer already stated he'll pick it up again if iwidgets is

Re: rawhide/F17 broken dependencies: please stop spamming

On Tue, 21 Feb 2012 17:48:37 -0800, TK (Toshio) wrote: > The orphan packages are more varied. Originally, there were packages that > had been orphaned for many releases. I believe that now we're cleaning up > all orphaned packages at each release branching so this may not be as much > the case.

Re: rawhide/F17 broken dependencies: please stop spamming

On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 19:09 +0100, KK (Kevin) wrote: > Bruno Wolff III wrote: > > The package can still be brought back, but now requires a review. > > This is really silly, why can't we just unretire the 2 or 3 packages which > were noticed the day they were retired and got an interested maintain

Re: rawhide/F17 broken dependencies: please stop spamming

On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 11:23:53 +0100, PM (Patrick) wrote: > > Since packages belonging to maintainer that have not changed their > password have been removed, I keep being notified about a broken > dependency in package "insight", depending on "iwidgets". > > "iwidgets" has been deprecated and thu

Re: python-sqlite2 retirement/orphaning

On Tue, 7 Feb 2012 10:08:03 -0800, TK (Toshio) wrote: > There is one package that actually has a code dependency on pysqlite2. I've > submitted a patch and asked someone I know who uses the package to test it: > > * plague https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=788189 Last time Plague has

Re: [Guidelines Change] Changes to the Packaging Guidelines

On Tue, 07 Feb 2012 12:17:07 +0100, HH (Honza) wrote: > On 02/07/2012 11:24 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote: > > Bohuslav Kabrda wrote: > >> Again, citing FHS: > >> "Distributions may install software in /opt, but must not modify or delete > >> software installed by the local system administrator without t

Re: Random koji problems

On Tue, 31 Jan 2012 17:32:05 +0100, MV (Mattia) wrote: > Hello all, > Is there any problem with koji in these days? > I'm getting random koji problems while building packages like > http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/getfile?taskID=3748927&name=build.log > > Yesterday was the same, however today

Re: [ACTION REQUIRED v3] Retiring packages for F-17

On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 15:33:39 -0800, AW (Adam) wrote: > On Sun, 2012-01-29 at 22:21 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote: > > > > What's needed to be sure the bug doesn't get closed is for the Version > > > field to be bumped to a release that's not going EOL. A co

Re: [ACTION REQUIRED v3] Retiring packages for F-17

On Sun, 29 Jan 2012 09:23:19 -0800, AW (Adam) wrote: > On Sat, 2012-01-28 at 20:43 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote: > > > Then you have misunderstood it, unfortunately. I'm not against EOL ticket > > cleanup procedures in general. I'm against closing tickets repeatedly

Re: Any takers for gphpedit?

On Fri, 27 Jan 2012 23:23:34 +0100, TJ (Tim) wrote: > gphpedit has been FTBFS for a while, due to the fact that its dependency > gtkhtml2 was also FTBFS and is now orphaned. It's also a couple of releases behind. The web page lists several newer ones made in 2010. > As a consequence (and due to

Re: Rolling release Fedora - fantastic idea

On Fri, 27 Jan 2012 18:10:00 -0600, AW (Andrew) wrote: > First, I think a rolling release Fedora is a fantastic idea. I'm > certain that it's possible, since I've been pulling packages from 15, > 16, and Rawhide downstream to Fuduntu which still has a lot of 14 left > at it's core with much su

Re: [ACTION REQUIRED v3] Retiring packages for F-17

On Sat, 28 Jan 2012 09:02:50 -0800, AW (Adam) wrote: > > The bugzilla account called "Bug Zapper" is a human-being not a script? > > Unbelievable. > > We run a search to identify the bugs to be closed (it's a stored search > in Bugzilla), manually weed the list, and then send the list to > engine

Re: [ACTION REQUIRED v3] Retiring packages for F-17

On Thu, 26 Jan 2012 14:56:39 -0600, BWI (Bruno) wrote: > > Orphan xmms-pulse > > Since I actually use xmms, I'm taking xmms-pulse. http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2012-January/161136.html -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/

Re: F17 proposal - prerelease version name changes

On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 10:22:37 +0100, MP (Michał) wrote: > Hi, > > Microsoft has changed the way of prerelease version naming > Alpha -> Developer Preview > Beta -> Consumer Preview > Release Candidate -> Enterprise (or Business) Preview The name is irrelevant. Its definition just needs to be clea

Automatic commit request approvial in pkgdb?

On Fri, 20 Jan 2012 15:38:47 -0700, KF (Kevin) wrote: > On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 02:20:15 +0100 > Kevin Kofler wrote: > > > Kevin Fenzi wrote: > > > We talked about, but never finished implementing a timeout on acl > > > requests. > > > > > > The way this would work is that maintainer would have some

Re: OT: fao: iso wranglers, md5 in install Media?

On Sat, 21 Jan 2012 17:50:26 +, FM (Frank) wrote: > As far as I can tell there is no md5 embedded in the download.isos > > But not getting into too much detail, > there is a user who is convinced there is. > > However there is an md5sum > check somewhere in the installation cd" > > > Can s

Re: [ACTION REQUIRED] Retiring packages for F-17

On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 09:54:39 -0500, SG (Stephen) wrote: > On Tue, 2012-01-17 at 02:21 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote: > > While that makes some sense, it was not my point. My point was that even if > > the package has NO maintainer, as long as it works, it's still better than > > no package at all! >

Re: How to send a package update

On Mon, 16 Jan 2012 10:46:13 -0500, JM (Julio) wrote: > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_update_HOWTO > > I actually had read that (although it was non-trivial to reach). > However, this document assumes you already are a maintainer with access > to the repository and build systems. Wha

Re: Too much bureaucracy or not enough interest? (Re: [ACTION REQUIRED] Retiring packages for F-17)

On Sun, 15 Jan 2012 20:37:16 +0100, MV (Mattia) wrote: > I'm just entered the world of Fedora packagers and I see a few points > that can be optimized in my opinion. > > 1. I saw a package that need to be upgraded. I opened a bug in bugzilla, > after some time whit no response from the maintain

Re: Orphaning packages

On Sun, 15 Jan 2012 11:28:10 +0100, VS (Vivek) wrote: >I have had no time for the past months to look after my packages so I am > orphaning them. > > teseq, mausezahn,samefile. I've taken "samefile". -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailma

Re: Too much bureaucracy or not enough interest? (Re: [ACTION REQUIRED] Retiring packages for F-17)

On Sat, 14 Jan 2012 18:45:28 +0100, KK (Kevin) wrote: > Michael Schwendt wrote: > > Why must it be the opposite? Arbitrary access to packages, possibly > > sporadic or random upgrades (as time permits), with no one taking care of > > the packages normally. > > Because

Too much bureaucracy or not enough interest? (Re: [ACTION REQUIRED] Retiring packages for F-17)

On Sat, 14 Jan 2012 09:12:06 +0100, KK (Kevin) wrote: > > Even in the scenario of project-wide write-access to > > packages, there must be someone to decide when to perform an upgrade. > > Not if we make it a project-wide policy to upgrade whenever there isn't a > strong reason not to (as I've b

Losing package maintainers (Re: [ACTION REQUIRED] Retiring packages for F-17)

On Sat, 14 Jan 2012 06:10:48 +0100, RC (Ralf) wrote: > > Even in the scenario of project-wide write-access to packages, > > there must be someone to decide when to perform an upgrade. > > ... but this someone doesn't have to be an individual nor does it have > to be the package maintainer. It can

Re: [ACTION REQUIRED] Retiring packages for F-17

On Fri, 13 Jan 2012 21:03:09 +0100, KK (Kevin) wrote: > When we're in danger of losing so many packages, it's a sign that our > processes are broken: That's a dubious conclusion. > * The forced password and SSH key change caused us to lose many maintainers, > not all of whom would have become

eiciel, xmms-pulse (Re: [ACTION REQUIRED] Retiring packages for F-17)

On Fri, 13 Jan 2012 11:11:13 -0500, BN (Bill) wrote: > Orphan eiciel Taken since I've kept it alive last year, too. > Orphan xmms-pulse This will need active development rather than just packaging, because it is still old code that causes problems meanwhile. Inspiration for changes that will b

Audacious 3.2-beta2 in Rawhide

Audacious 3.2-beta2 has landed in Rawhide. It's supposed to stay API/ABI-compatible at least up to and including 3.2 final. Compared with previous releases in F-16 (and older) it is API/ABI-incompatible once again, however. I've taken care of patching and rebuilding dependencies in the Fedora pack

Re: [pkgdb] gqview ownership changed

On Wed, 11 Jan 2012 12:06:43 +, FP (Fedora) wrote: > Package gqview in Fedora EPEL 6 is now owned by jcapik > > To make changes to this package see: > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/acls/name/gqview Hi! Doesn't it make more sense to consider Geeqie (package "geeqie") instead? -- d

Re: using a macro in ExclusiveArch

On Thu, 5 Jan 2012 08:11:07 -0600, DG (Dennis) wrote: > > > Is it significant that all three filenames end in "-srpm"? Or > > > should this be considered a bug in Koji? > > > > I think the -srpm in there is not important. > > > > $ ls /etc/rpm > > macros.color macros.fjava macros.mono-srp

Re: using a macro in ExclusiveArch

On Thu, 5 Jan 2012 13:08:21 +0100, BP (Björn) wrote: > I need some advice on how to fix this build failure. The GtkAda package > builds > fine in Mock, but fails in Koji with the error "No matching arches were > found": > > http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3621310 > > Severa

Re: Pidgin for Rawhide/F-16

On Thu, 29 Dec 2011 17:15:57 +1100, BS (Bojan) wrote: > Does anyone know whether a new build of Pidgin (2.10.1) is required for > Rawhide/F-16? I'm talking about: > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=766269 > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=CVE-2011-3594 > > Not getting a

Re: broken dependencies for fawkes-plugin-player

On Tue, 27 Dec 2011 12:43:02 +0100, FD (Francesco) wrote: > fawkes-plugin-player.x86_64 require libgeos-3.3.0.so (64bit) but > geos.x86_64 package provides libgeos-3.3.1.so It has been reported before and in the right place: http://bugz.fedoraproject.org/fawkes An update of "geos" is incompat

Re: Emesene 2.11.11 package

http://bugz.fedoraproject.org/emesene shows that there have been two other update requests before, and there are more than a dozen open bug reports. I've closed a couple of dupes. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: F16 release to Rawhide upgrade failure

On Fri, 16 Dec 2011 16:57:24 +0100, NS (Nicola) wrote: > > A fresh install of Fedora 16 x86_64 DVD, then enabled fedora-release-rawhide > > and disabled updates and updates-testing. It wants to pull in i686 packages, > > and the full output with --skip-broken is this: > > > > http://mschwendt.fed

<    5   6   7   8   9   10   11   12   13   14   >