Re: Proposed F19 Feature: Cinnamon as Default Desktop

On 02/05/2013 07:42 AM, Adam Williamson wrote: On Tue, 2013-02-05 at 07:19 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote: On 02/05/2013 05:51 AM, Adam Williamson wrote: On Tue, 2013-02-05 at 02:59 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote: , but since you started it: OpenSUSE is doing just fine doing exactly what I suggest

Re: Proposed F19 Feature: Cinnamon as Default Desktop

On 02/05/2013 05:51 AM, Adam Williamson wrote: On Tue, 2013-02-05 at 02:59 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote: , but since you started it: OpenSUSE is doing just fine doing exactly what I suggest (making people actually pick their download). Their download button actually points to a selector, not dire

Re: Proposed F19 Feature: Cinnamon as Default Desktop

On 02/05/2013 05:37 AM, Adam Williamson wrote: On Mon, 2013-02-04 at 20:35 -0500, Jon VanAlten wrote: tl'dr: Please leave the straw man "new users won't be able to decide" argument at the door, there's a way around it if we can think about the *best* way to do it, rather than the *worst*. It'

Re: Proposed F19 Feature: Cinnamon as Default Desktop

On 02/05/2013 04:36 AM, Adam Williamson wrote: On Mon, 2013-02-04 at 21:49 -0500, Orcan Ogetbil wrote: Honestly, what kind of benefit to the community do you expect from a user who gets confused just by looking at a couple nice screenshots and reading some brief explanation? Have you ever met s

Re: Proposed F19 Feature: Cinnamon as Default Desktop

On 02/04/2013 05:47 PM, Kévin Raymond wrote: From what I have reports even Fedora 32-bit does not boot on such machines because nobody tests the bleeding edge Fedora kernels on such obsolete hardware. Could you provide more details? I have Fedora 18 running on several 32bit machines and am won

Re: Proposed F19 Feature: Cinnamon as Default Desktop

On 02/04/2013 02:42 PM, Jan Kratochvil wrote: On Mon, 04 Feb 2013 14:16:58 +0100, Martin Sourada wrote: Big +1. What will an unsuspecting user think when he downloads, burns and tries Fedora on 32bit machine? That it's broken, From what I have reports even Fedora 32-bit does not boot on such

Re: [perl/f17] Mark perl-IO-Compress as noarch

On 01/31/2013 09:16 AM, Petr Pisar wrote: commit 5ccf12aabce2eed4b0216d42c75ff87953265169 Author: Petr Písař Date: Thu Jan 31 09:12:32 2013 +0100 Mark perl-IO-Compress as noarch perl.spec |1 + 1 files changed, 1 insertio

Re: Proposed F19 Feature: Cinnamon as Default Desktop

On 01/27/2013 03:53 PM, Jaroslav Reznik wrote: = Features/Cinnamon as Default Desktop = https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/Cinnamon_as_Default_Desktop Feature owner(s): Eric Smith This feature proposes that Fedora switch the default desktop interface from Gnome 3 to Cinnamon. Cinnamon pro

F18 metalink urls pointing to development/18 instead of releases/18/Everything

Hi, the Fedora 18 metalink-urls as being used in /etc/yum.repo.d/*repo, e.g. https://mirrors.fedoraproject.org/metalink?repo=fedora-$releasever&arch=$basearch, are still pointing to */development/18 instead of */releases/18/Everything, as they should after a release. Ralf -- devel mailing li

Re: Status to make btsfs to the standard filesystem of Fedora

On 01/19/2013 10:25 AM, Jan Kratochvil wrote: I am aware the best way to fix known Bugs is ... to just fix those Bugs. Maybe I am pronouncing the obvious, but I am wondering, whether you guys have a "required feature" list and a regression test-suite? At least to me, having both and complyi

Re: Something is killing my Koji build

On 01/11/2013 01:12 PM, Richard Hughes wrote: On 11 January 2013 11:32, Ralf Corsepius wrote: Then its configure script likely honors --disable-silent-rules That works a treat, thanks. In both cases, it's worth contacting upstream to tell them about the harmfulness of silent make

Re: Something is killing my Koji build

On 01/11/2013 11:27 AM, Richard Hughes wrote: On 11 January 2013 10:21, Ralf Corsepius wrote: builds verbose Good idea. Do I just do this Is the package autotools-based using a recent version of the autotools? Then its configure script likely honors --disable-silent-rules (c.f. ./configure

Re: comps' "standard" group spring cleaning?

On 01/11/2013 11:35 AM, Xose Vazquez Perez wrote: On 01/11/2013 12:01 AM, William Brown wrote: Nothing I didn't know about it. Will read into it now. Maybe this shows that a documentation component is needed, to "bridge" the gap to say X tool is replaced by Y IE netstat -> ss man netstat:

Re: Something is killing my Koji build

On 01/11/2013 10:01 AM, Richard Hughes wrote: I've tried to build colord for f18 a few times now. It builds locally fine, but when run on Koji it gets killed: make[3]: *** [FOGRA28L_webcoated.icc] Killed It only seems to happen when the print profiles are being created, which do take some time t

Re: Fedora 18 issues with translations and keymaps

On 01/03/2013 04:01 PM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote: What is not right here while the distribution has significantly increased in size the release cycle has not been extended to accommodate for that ( amongst other growth pain we suffer from ) The number of packages might have increased, but i

Re: Summary/Minutes for today's FESCo meeting (2012-12-19)

On 12/21/2012 02:24 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote: On Fri, 21.12.12 05:38, Ralf Corsepius (rc040...@freenet.de) wrote: On 12/21/2012 12:27 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote: On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 10:30:37PM +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: Thanks, but I think the bit I'm mising is why

Re: Summary/Minutes for today's FESCo meeting (2012-12-19)

On 12/21/2012 09:42 AM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 07:45:45AM +, Matthew Garrett wrote: On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 11:24:09PM -0800, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: However, you also miss my point. Adam's message was saying that the guidelines forced people to use libexecdir and

Re: Summary/Minutes for today's FESCo meeting (2012-12-19)

On 12/21/2012 09:24 AM, Florian Weimer wrote: On 12/21/2012 12:27 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote: On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 10:30:37PM +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: Thanks, but I think the bit I'm mising is why can't systemd use libexec? (Apart from their declaration that libexec is wrong or not

Re: Summary/Minutes for today's FESCo meeting (2012-12-19)

On 12/21/2012 06:36 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote: On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 06:09:10AM +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote: On 12/21/2012 05:54 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote: On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 05:38:17AM +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote: I disagree. systemd simply hasn't taken libexecdir into account i

Re: Summary/Minutes for today's FESCo meeting (2012-12-19)

On 12/21/2012 06:16 AM, Adam Williamson wrote: On Fri, 2012-12-21 at 06:09 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote: On 12/21/2012 05:54 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote: On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 05:38:17AM +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote: I disagree. systemd simply hasn't taken libexecdir into account in its d

Re: Summary/Minutes for today's FESCo meeting (2012-12-19)

On 12/21/2012 05:54 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote: On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 05:38:17AM +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote: I disagree. systemd simply hasn't taken libexecdir into account in its design and now is trying to propagate their oversight/mistake as "standard" instead of mak

Re: Summary/Minutes for today's FESCo meeting (2012-12-19)

On 12/21/2012 01:15 AM, Matthew Miller wrote: On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 04:05:36PM -0800, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: As I said in the meeting, libexec is somewhat of a red herring here. The packaging guidelines already allow substituting subdirs of %_libdir for %_libexecdir. What's in question is be

Re: Summary/Minutes for today's FESCo meeting (2012-12-19)

On 12/21/2012 12:27 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote: On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 10:30:37PM +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: Thanks, but I think the bit I'm mising is why can't systemd use libexec? (Apart from their declaration that libexec is wrong or not the de-facto standard they themselves made up,

Re: fltk

On 12/19/2012 04:22 PM, Susi Lehtola wrote: On Thu, 20 Dec 2012 01:12:38 +1000 Adrian wrote: Please guys get your act together on fltk, the yum build is ridiculous; [root@fedora18desk ~]# fltk-config --ldflags -Wl,-z,relro -lfltk should be (built from source) [root@fedora18desk ~]# fltk-

Re: Where are we going? (Not a rant)

On 12/09/2012 12:20 AM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote: On 12/08/2012 05:51 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote: My primary problem with Fedora isn't "lack of stability", but lack of API/ABI and UI-stability/persistence/sustainability between upgrades. In other words, I ca

Re: Where are we going? (Not a rant)

On 12/08/2012 05:31 PM, Michael Scherer wrote: Le samedi 08 décembre 2012 à 05:12 -0800, Dan Mashal a écrit : In fact, I never heard anyone complaining about "kde is dying" while the numbers are much more worrisome : http://www.ohloh.net/p/kde/contributors/summary Maybe that's caused by

Re: Where are we going? (Not a rant)

On 12/08/2012 06:07 AM, M. Edward (Ed) Borasky wrote: On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 7:26 PM, Arun SAG wrote: On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 5:32 AM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote: If we want to solve this we need to release an Fedora LTS release for our and the potential other user >base that don't hav

Re: I want upgrade my computer

On 11/29/2012 05:47 PM, Sérgio Basto wrote: Hi, I have two machines for test on at home and one at office , I want upgrade to F18 Beta . 1 - Try Preupgrade but No preupgrade for F17->F18 ? http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2012-August/109441.html http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipe

Re: LibRaw: possible license issues

On 11/26/2012 07:54 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote: On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 07:40:10PM +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote: I am not familiar with gstreamer's internals, but AFAIIK, these plugins aren't linked, but "dlopen'ed". Otherwise these "plugins" would not be

Re: LibRaw: possible license issues

On 11/26/2012 07:29 PM, Debarshi Ray wrote: Why does it matter? Their code hasn't changed, and has not become GPLv3. The package is GPLv3+. It matters because Shotwell links to GStreamer. GStreamer applications either opt for LGPLv2+ or GPLv2+ with exceptions because they might end up using p

Re: macros.cmake: set -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=ReleaseWithDebInfo by default

On 11/13/2012 02:48 PM, Richard Shaw wrote: On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 11:14 PM, Ralf Corsepius mailto:rc040...@freenet.de>> wrote: On 11/13/2012 05:05 AM, Richard Shaw wrote: I own several packages that use cmake and I've taken to setting the release type to RelWi

Re: macros.cmake: set -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=ReleaseWithDebInfo by default

On 11/13/2012 05:05 AM, Richard Shaw wrote: On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 4:46 PM, Rex Dieter mailto:rdie...@math.unl.edu>> wrote: See also, https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=875954 orionp and I were discussing on irc today, the idea to add -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=ReleaseWithDebI

Re: Fedora 18 Beta to slip by two weeks, Beta release date is now Nov 27

On 11/10/2012 05:36 AM, Adam Williamson wrote: On Sat, 2012-11-10 at 05:22 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote: On 11/10/2012 01:30 AM, Adam Williamson wrote: On Sat, 2012-11-10 at 00:52 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote: Adam Williamson wrote: So, since Fedora has existed, Anaconda's memory require

Re: Fedora 18 Beta to slip by two weeks, Beta release date is now Nov 27

On 11/10/2012 01:30 AM, Adam Williamson wrote: On Sat, 2012-11-10 at 00:52 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote: Adam Williamson wrote: So, since Fedora has existed, Anaconda's memory requirements have increased by at least an order of magnitude! How's that NOT "skyrocketing"? You're being pretty abs

Re: Revamping the non responsive maintainer process

On 11/07/2012 09:49 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote: Dne 6.11.2012 16:04, Ralf Corsepius napsal(a): On 11/06/2012 02:24 PM, Vít Ondruch wrote: Dne 6.11.2012 14:17, Aleksandar Kurtakov napsal(a): - Original Message - From: "Vít Ondruch" To: devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Sent: Tuesday

Re: Revamping the non responsive maintainer process

On 11/06/2012 02:24 PM, Vít Ondruch wrote: Dne 6.11.2012 14:17, Aleksandar Kurtakov napsal(a): - Original Message - From: "Vít Ondruch" To: devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Sent: Tuesday, November 6, 2012 2:56:18 PM Subject: Re: Revamping the non responsive maintainer process So give me

Re: Rolling release model philosophy (was Re: Anaconda is totally trashing the F18 schedule (was Re: f18: how to install into a LVM partitions (or RAID)))

On 11/05/2012 01:11 AM, Matěj Cepl wrote: On Fri, 02 Nov 2012 20:55:38 +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote: and one "stable" release ( valid for 2 maybe 3 years ) for those in the community that want something they dont constantly having to upgrade to and can deploy on their servers. ( ofcourse t

Re: Anaconda is totally trashing the F18 schedule (was Re: f18: how to install into a LVM partitions (or RAID))

On 10/31/2012 11:00 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 10:59:54AM -0700, Jesse Keating wrote: I think we need to give developers more time for feature integration after the feature freeze. +1 No matter whether we increase the length of development or not, the time between fea

Re: [FYI] Motif finally opened under LGPL

On 10/25/2012 03:43 PM, Matthew Miller wrote: On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 03:20:01PM +0200, Gerd Hoffmann wrote: Are there any particular drawbacks to lesstif at this point? It's been a few years I looked at this, but the lesstif implementation was incomlete/buggy and some apps didn't run properly

Re: [FYI] Motif finally opened under LGPL

On 10/25/2012 02:14 PM, Matthew Miller wrote: On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 10:44:13AM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: Time to move Motif from "unpronounceable 3rd party repo" into Fedora and to consider rebuilding all lesstif-linked packages against it ;) Are there any particular drawbacks

Re: [FYI] Motif finally opened under LGPL

On 10/25/2012 10:17 AM, Peter Lemenkov wrote: Hello All! Not so long after opening CDE they relicensed (Open)Motif under LGPL. > http://sourceforge.net/projects/motif/ Time to rewrite everything with Motif! :) More seriously: Time to move Motif from "unpronounceable 3rd party repo" into Fe

Re: fedpkg / koji error

On 10/22/2012 10:43 PM, Tom Callaway wrote: On 10/22/2012 12:09 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote: There is currently no way to "undefine" a macro at the rpm commandline, rpmbuild --define " %{nil}" ? Huh, I swear I knew that once. :) Attached is a patch to use the %{nil}

Re: fedpkg / koji error

On 10/22/2012 05:56 PM, Tom Callaway wrote: On 10/18/2012 03:57 AM, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: I'd say the current behaviour is the quite bad, as it leads to different results when building with fedpkg and rpmbuild on F18. The real fix afaics would be to revert the change and, if wanted, define rh

Re: [Feature Suggestion] UsrMove continued

On 10/11/2012 02:44 AM, Adam Williamson wrote: On Wed, 2012-10-10 at 13:11 +0300, Serge wrote: 2012/10/9 tim.lauridsen wrote: So you make your system incompatible with every other Linux distro out there, and with all existing documentation, but to what end? Tidyness? Tidyness, simplicity, ne

Re: Any progress in Software Center in Fedora effort?

On 10/08/2012 10:49 AM, Jiri Eischmann wrote: Reindl Harald píše v Ne 07. 10. 2012 v 20:02 +0200: Am 07.10.2012 19:55, schrieb drago01: Maybe maybe not. The point is that a fancy software shop would result into this "old mother" type of user consider to use fedora. A user ultimately don't care

Re: Packages in need of new maintainers

On 10/03/2012 08:23 PM, Jon Ciesla wrote: As a result of FESCO ticket 952*, Lubomir Rintel's 200+ packages are in need of new maintainers. Under normal circumstances we'd simply orphan them all, but given the large number we want to handle this in a more orderly fashion. Please reply to the lis

Re: replacing folders with symlinks leads to rpm cpio rename errors

On 09/21/2012 09:22 AM, Julian Sikorski wrote: W dniu 21.09.2012 08:53, Julian Sikorski pisze: Hi list, one of the updates I am preparing is supposed to replace some of the folders with symlinks. Unfortunately, this leads to rpm cpio: rename errors upon an update attempt. Is there a standard wa

Re: Non-responsive pytrainer maintainer; anyone interested in the package?

On 09/05/2012 07:02 PM, Kalev Lember wrote: Hello, Anyone interested in picking up pytrainer maintainership? It has broken deps as shipped in both F16 and F17 and cannot even be installed. Same issue is also present in latest F18 Branched report: [pytrainer] pytrainer-1.7.2-4.fc18.noarch requir

Re: rawhide report: 20120825 changes

On 08/27/2012 06:13 PM, Adam Jackson wrote: On 8/27/12 9:10 AM, Adam Jackson wrote: pangoxft should be a functional replacement, as far as I can tell, and the APIs seem to be quite similar. Actually I'm told pangocairo is the preferred thing instead of pangoxft. repoquery agrees: $ repoque

Unexpanded rpm macros in "Requires"

Hi, Bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=850628 has made me look into some more packages and lets me come up with this finding: There are several packages in Fedora, which carry unexpanded rpm-macros in their "Requires" [1]: b/beefy-miracle-kde-theme-16.91.0.1-2.fc18.noarch.rpm:

Re: No f18 in bodhi

On 08/14/2012 05:19 PM, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: "RC" == Ralf Corsepius writes: RC> Hi, f18 seems to be missing in bodhi. RC> I.e., ATM, it seems impossible to push packages to f18. Until today, f18 is like rawhide; you build and it goes in at the next compose. To me, th

No f18 in bodhi

Hi, f18 seems to be missing in bodhi. I.e., ATM, it seems impossible to push packages to f18. Ralf -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: Broken dependencies: perl-Class-InsideOut

Hi, On 07/27/2012 03:07 PM, build...@fedoraproject.org wrote: perl-Class-InsideOut has broken dependencies in the rawhide tree: On x86_64: perl-Class-InsideOut-1.10-6.fc17.noarch requires perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.14.2) On i386: perl-Class-InsideOut-1.10-6.fc17.noarch requires pe

Re: Ubuntu Unity has been ported to Fedora 17

On 07/19/2012 07:01 PM, Jussi Lehtola wrote: Lol, as if that isn't enough, looks like they ship their own version of GCC 4.6 as well in the repo... I don't know what Ubuntu has been doing so far, but to be fair, probably all major Linux distros and, on a more general scope probably all OSes s

Re: koji build help

On 07/18/2012 02:53 PM, Raymond Pete wrote: Hi, I have a package which builds fine on my host, as I have my required rpm's installed. How do I install my dependencies in koji so the package compiles. For example, I need zlib-devel to be installed and lapack-devel Add a BuildRequires: -devel fo

Re: [HEADS-UP] Rawhide: /tmp is now on tmpfs

On 06/20/2012 05:45 PM, Peter Jones wrote: On 06/20/2012 10:16 AM, Reindl Harald wrote: Am 20.06.2012 16:11, schrieb Ralf Corsepius: On 06/20/2012 03:35 PM, Chris Lumens wrote: Again: I'm perfectly happy if it is rejected as a feature. I don't really care either way. What I'd

Re: [HEADS-UP] Rawhide: /tmp is now on tmpfs

On 06/20/2012 03:35 PM, Chris Lumens wrote: Again: I'm perfectly happy if it is rejected as a feature. I don't really care either way. What I'd really hate to see is a checkbox in the installer so we are compelled to test both variations... > Yeah, I won't be adding any checkboxes to have peopl

Re: [HEADS-UP] Rawhide: /tmp is now on tmpfs

On 06/02/2012 03:44 AM, Adam Williamson wrote: On Fri, 2012-06-01 at 15:57 -0400, DJ Delorie wrote: it's a bad design to ask the end user about this kind of thing during installation. IIRC, I suggested a checkbox in the disk partitioning page, where we're already asking the user all sorts of q

Re: redhat-rpm-config and rpm-build (fwd)

On 06/15/2012 05:03 AM, Jens Petersen wrote: yum install rpm-build should install an rpmbuild version that works as expected for fedora. Currently, it does not because it is missing the dependancy on redhat-rpm-config. Well I tend to agree: it would be the least surprising behaviour for most f

Re: *countable infinities only

On 06/12/2012 07:43 PM, Bill Nottingham wrote: Jay Sulzberger (j...@panix.com) said: There is here no irrestible tide. Rather, Fedora is jumping to surrender before engagement. Secret discussions with Microsoft is perhaps part of this engagement. But such discussion is not the whole battle.

Re: Action required: Rawhide: /tmp is now on tmpfs

On 06/01/2012 02:12 PM, Alexey I. Froloff wrote: On Fri, Jun 01, 2012 at 01:21:25PM +0200, Miloslav Trmač wrote: Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that Fedora 18 will ship with I certainly disagree ... this change is not reasonable. this change, and applications need to be updated to hand

Re: [HEADS-UP] Rawhide: /tmp is now on tmpfs

On 05/31/2012 12:45 PM, Pádraig Brady wrote: On 05/31/2012 08:14 AM, Roberto Ragusa wrote: On 05/31/2012 02:40 AM, Lennart Poettering wrote: Heya! Please be aware that since the most recent systemd uploads /tmp is now in tmpfs by default in Rawhide/F18. [...] This will most likely lead to a

Re: Strategy for packaging an ARM Cortex-M toolchain

On 05/25/2012 10:45 PM, Brendan Conoboy wrote: On 05/25/2012 12:10 PM, Przemek Klosowski wrote: I recomment to implement 2 separate toolchains with separate packages. Well, maybe that's true in the interest of expediency, but it's hardly an optimal solution. Would it at least be possible to li

Re: Strategy for packaging an ARM Cortex-M toolchain

On 05/25/2012 05:29 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote: On 05/24/2012 03:21 PM, Rob Spanton wrote: Hi Ralf, I wrote: So is it best to attempt to get one arm-binutils package and remove redundancy, or is it going to be more productive to just put up with the redundancy for now? Ralf wrote: No, this

Re: Strategy for packaging an ARM Cortex-M toolchain

On 05/24/2012 03:21 PM, Rob Spanton wrote: Hi Ralf, I wrote: So is it best to attempt to get one arm-binutils package and remove redundancy, or is it going to be more productive to just put up with the redundancy for now? Ralf wrote: No, this will hardly work and would be a nightmare to main

Re: Strategy for packaging an ARM Cortex-M toolchain

On 05/23/2012 06:07 PM, Rob Spanton wrote: Hi, There are an increasing number of ARM Cortex-M based boards around, and I'd like to get a cross-compilation toolchain for them into the Fedora repositories. I'd like to make it just as easy to compile for Cortex-M chips under Fedora as it is to com

Re: Stop the git abuse

On 05/22/2012 01:42 PM, Vít Ondruch wrote: Dne 22.5.2012 13:22, Stanislav Ochotnicky napsal(a): I never use clog for creating changelog in spec so I don't know how it's supposed to work. I assume it stopped working right after cvs->fedpkg transition. Neither did I and I don't think it is eve

Re: Stop the git abuse

On 05/21/2012 12:09 PM, Matej Cepl wrote: On 21.5.2012 10:23, Ralf Corsepius wrote: -1 changelogs are manually written documents and source files. And your commit messages are written by aliens? My change logs are inside of the rpm.spec. You are lucky! I have to write them myself (and I

Re: Stop the git abuse

On 05/21/2012 02:19 PM, Stijn Hoop wrote: The reasons you mention are just FUD -- this can happen to whatever data you specify No ... I have seen all such cases happen. People killing git histories in various ways, ... not worth mentioning, I'd yet have to see one single VCS conversion which d

Re: Stop the git abuse

On 05/21/2012 12:27 PM, Jaroslav Reznik wrote: - Original Message - On Mon, 2012-05-21 at 10:23 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: On 05/21/2012 09:56 AM, Jaroslav Reznik wrote: - Original Message - On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 07:07:56PM +0200, Remi Collet wrote: And definitvely, for

Re: Stop the git abuse

On 05/21/2012 12:21 PM, Gerd Hoffmann wrote: On 05/21/12 10:23, Ralf Corsepius wrote: On 05/21/2012 09:56 AM, Jaroslav Reznik wrote: - Original Message - On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 07:07:56PM +0200, Remi Collet wrote: And definitvely, for me, (and probably only for me), git is really

Re: Stop the git abuse

On 05/21/2012 09:56 AM, Jaroslav Reznik wrote: - Original Message - On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 07:07:56PM +0200, Remi Collet wrote: And definitvely, for me, (and probably only for me), git is really not a good tool for spec maintenance. Not duplicating the changelog would help. There's

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

On 05/07/2012 10:08 AM, Michael Schwendt wrote: 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

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

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.remotesensing.org/libtiff/v4.0.0.html By my count there are about a hundred depe

Re: Proposal for revitalizing the sponsorship process for packaging

On 04/26/2012 06:37 PM, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: "MS" == Michael Schwendt writes: I don't believe so, no. I do believe that you are reading something into my proposal that simply is not there, however. MS> What if sponsors _try_ but for some time haven't found anyone who MS> shows enou

f17 repos in disorder?

Hi, I don't know what is going on, but from what I see, the f17 repositories currently seem to contain multiple versions of packages and binary/src.rpm mismatches: E.g.: 17/x86_64/os/Packages/i/ibus-table-code-1.2.0.20100305-8.fc15.noarch.rpm 17/x86_64/os/Packages/i/ibus-table-code-1.3.0.201

Re: Proposal for revitalizing the sponsorship process for packaging

On 04/26/2012 04:20 PM, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: "MS" == Michael Schwendt writes: 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

Re: [perl-Perl-Critic] Do not use Test::Kwalitee on RHEL >= 7

On 04/24/2012 05:10 PM, Petr Pisar wrote: commit 69efbb099367a7ff6a35107cc3079a02a8e599f5 Author: Petr Písař Date: Tue Apr 24 15:38:58 2012 +0200 Do not use Test::Kwalitee on RHEL>= 7 Why? In general, dropping tests is a short-sighted idea. -- Fedora Extras Perl SIG http://www.fedorapr

Re: Fedora 18 Release name voting and Poll for whether to continue naming releases

On 04/23/2012 03:06 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: On Fri, 2012-04-20 at 09:58 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: Why isn't adding a link to an explanation to avoid misunderstandings originating from conotations sufficient anymore? This is at least what had been done in the past. 'sufficien

Re: Fedora 18 Release name voting and Poll for whether to continue naming releases

On 04/20/2012 05:21 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 09:36:17AM +0100, Richard Hughes wrote: On 20 April 2012 07:41, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: As for the poll -- The Board has heard a lot of people asking to remove code names but is unsure if thats just because thats the group t

Re: Fedora 18 Release name voting and Poll for whether to continue naming releases

On 04/20/2012 08:34 AM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 10:00:58PM -0500, Michael Cronenworth wrote: On 04/19/2012 07:04 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: This cycle, the Board is also asking contributors to let us know if we should continue to have release names for future Fedora relea

Re: disruptive libffi upgrade

On 04/15/2012 12:33 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote: Horst H. von Brand wrote: keeping generated files in git is just dumb. +1, but IMHO this is true even without the "in git" addition. Generated files also have no business being in a source tarball, You guys seem to be unable to comprehend the differe

Re: /tmp on tmpfs

On 04/06/2012 01:47 PM, Marcela Mašláňová wrote: On 04/06/2012 11:14 AM, Vratislav Podzimek wrote: On Mon, 2012-04-02 at 20:58 +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: On Mon, Apr 02, 2012 at 08:32:56PM +0200, Miloslav Trmač wrote: * #834 F18 Feature: /tmp on tmpfs - http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Feat

Re: rawhide vs. protected multilib versions

On 04/05/2012 05:23 PM, Panu Matilainen wrote: The point with %{_isa} in dependency names is that it eliminates the problematic ambiguity. Really? I think %{_isa} is harmful, because it breaks -> updates, and tries to project depsolver bugs into rpms. Ralf -- devel mailing list devel@lis

Re: /tmp on tmpfs

On 04/04/2012 01:36 PM, Tomasz Torcz wrote: On Wed, Apr 04, 2012 at 11:51:08AM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote: drago01 wrote: We could just make anaconda remove everything in /tmp ... done. First of all, renaming it as Simo Sorce suggested makes more sense. But secondly, what you both miss is tha

Re: Git post-release version-release

On 04/01/2012 07:40 AM, Alec Leamas wrote: My problem is about possible ways to form the version-release fields for a git post-release.. My example involves a version like 1.1.0 and a git release like 20120329git1234567 Reading [1], all examples of post-release updates are on the form foo-1.1.0-

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 03/30/2012 05:00 PM, Karel Klíč wrote: Michael Schwendt writes: On Fri, 30 Mar 2012 09:09:51 -0400, bugzilla wrote: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=789636 *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 759143 *** This one is highly suspicious. It would be better to not clo

Re: RFC: Primary architecture promotion requirements

On 03/20/2012 07:05 PM, Brendan Conoboy wrote: On 03/20/2012 10:44 AM, drago01 wrote: On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 5:56 PM, Brendan Conoboy wrote: Please, please, no. Cross compilation for Fedora cannot and will not ever get a secondary arch to primary. We're talking man-decades of engineering time

Re: RFC: Primary architecture promotion requirements

On 03/20/2012 05:46 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 05:37:10PM +0100, drago01 wrote: On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 5:34 PM, Brendan Conoboy wrote: On 03/20/2012 09:21 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote: That said, I considera cross-building environment for secondary arch to be

Re: RFC: Primary architecture promotion requirements

On 03/20/2012 04:58 PM, Brendan Conoboy wrote: On 03/20/2012 08:24 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: I think the speed of the build hardware should be also part of the criteria, as all primary architectures are built synchronously. GCC on x86_64/i686 currently builds often in 2 hours, sometimes in 4 hour

Re: Automating the NonResponsiveMaintainers policy

On 03/02/2012 12:12 PM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote: On 03/02/2012 11:02 AM, Marcela Mašláňová wrote: Ok, so you'll automatically start non-responsive maintainer process, because maintainer didn't work on a one bug. But he might be working on different component for whole month. He might be wo

Re: Clarify our position on forks

On 02/27/2012 02:14 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote: On Mon, 2012-02-27 at 08:07 +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: Kevin Fenzi wrote on 27.02.2012 04:21: #topic #810 Clarify our position on forks .fesco 810 It's just a statement that is asked for in the ticket, but nevertheless: Shouldn't issues l

Re: /usrmove and path ordering

On 02/15/2012 10:37 AM, drago01 wrote: On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 1:26 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote: Lennart Poettering wrote: Because dropping these dirs from the search paths is merely an optimization, not a requirement. You call it an "optimization", I call it fixing a pessimization (performance r

Re: /usrmove?

On 02/10/2012 02:28 PM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote: On 02/10/2012 01:17 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote: Ok, then my advice to you is: Stop shifiting around responsibilities and start to work. Team up with others and start working on migrating the remaining not-converted services.

Re: Fedora major feature introduction; was Re: /usrmove?

On 02/10/2012 04:51 PM, Przemek Klosowski wrote: On 02/09/2012 11:45 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote: Let me put it this way: I am having difficulties in recalling any Fedora release which worked for me out of the box ... ... That said, IMO, on the technical side, Fedora urgently needs a "ca

Re: /usrmove?

On 02/10/2012 01:05 PM, Michal Schmidt wrote: Ralf Corsepius wrote: Let me put it this way: I am having difficulties in recalling any Fedora release which worked for me out of the box ... In earlier releases there for example were pulseaudio and SELinux, in current releases it's prim

Re: /usrmove?

On 02/10/2012 01:34 PM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote: On 02/10/2012 10:49 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote: On 02/10/2012 10:06 AM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote: On 02/10/2012 04:45 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote: In this spirit, I eg. would propose to table usrmove for F17 a

Re: /usrmove?

On 02/10/2012 12:11 PM, Michael Schroeder wrote: On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 11:28:59AM +0100, Olav Vitters wrote: It has been approved, other distributions are following. It is very clear you do not want this. But at the same time, it is happening in Fedora and elsewhere (noticed openSUSE, will pro

Re: /usrmove?

On 02/10/2012 10:06 AM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote: On 02/10/2012 04:45 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote: In this spirit, I eg. would propose to table usrmove for F17 and to concentrate on systemd integration and anaconda/grub2 improvements, both topics, I perceived as the "hall

Re: /usrmove?

On 02/09/2012 11:06 PM, Jared K. Smith wrote: On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 11:57 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote: IMO, Fedora has obvious problems with its - work-flow (Too immature SW migrates/sneaks through from Alpha/Beta to Final) If you feel this is the case, feel free to help improve the work-flow

<    2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   >