NSS update to 3.13.3 coming soon
NSS 3.13.3 has been relessed and it's built for Rawhide/F-17-alpha/F-16/F15. A push to update-testing for f17 will be coming shortly - to f16/f15 som time later. You can find the new features and bug fixes in NSS 3.13.2 and 3.13.3 with these Bugzilla queries: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/buglist.cgi?list_id=1496878resolution=FIXEDclassification=Componentsquery_format=advancedtarget_milestone=3.13.2product=NSS https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/buglist.cgi?list_id=1496878resolution=FIXEDclassification=Componentsquery_format=advancedtarget_milestone=3.13.3product=NSS and fixes for NSPR 4.9 with this query: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/buglist.cgi?list_id=1496878resolution=FIXEDclassification=Componentsquery_format=advancedtarget_milestone=4.9product=NSPR When we updated nss last, from to nss-3.13.1, a notable change was: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=665814 The NSS upstream announcement stated: A defense against the SSL 3.0 and TLS 1.0 CBC chosen plaintext attack demonstrated by Rizzo and Duong (CVE-2011-3389) is enabled by default. to set the SSL_CBC_RANDOM_IV SSL option to PR_FALSE to disable it. This caused breakage connecting to various servers, due to servers temselvs and some client applications We opted to reverse the sense of the fix's default and stated tht it was off and that if desired you could set the SSL_CBC_RANDOM_IV SSL option to PR_TRUE to enable it. This was done for the stable branches, F-16/15, while Rawhide had fix on by default. Since then several fedora maintainers have either patched affected procts downstream or submitted patches that were accepted by their respective upstreams. Some patches have yet to be accepted. The last time I checked such was the case with OpenSSSL. Others we don't know yet. Since F-17 is now Alpha and I have set the default to off like it is on F-16/15, Rawhide (f18) still has it on. We would like to find what additional products will still break with this fix. If you can, could you set the SSL_CBC_RANDOM_IV SSL option to PR_TRUE and try it and send us feedback on remaining sites or apps that syill break? Thank you in advance, Elio Maldonado -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
[Test-Announce] 2012-03-12 @ 15:00 UTC - Fedora QA Meeting
On Sun, 2012-03-11 at 22:22 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: # Fedora Quality Assurance Meeting # Date: 2012-03-12 # Time: 15:00 UTC (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Infrastructure/UTCHowto) # Location: #fedora-meeting on irc.freenode.net Official Meeting Announcement Errata: Yes, I forgot to update the date in the subject. Also, clocks went forward this weekend in North America, so the meeting will be at *1500 UTC*, not 1600. That means that, anywhere the clocks have gone forward, it'll be at the same time - it's still 11am Eastern, 8am Pacific. I solemnly swear that one time, JUST ONE TIME, the clocks go forwards or backwards I will get the announcement right the first try. Just once. Before I die or drink myself into retirement. ONE TIME! -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora http://www.happyassassin.net ___ test-announce mailing list test-annou...@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test-announce -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Schedule for today's FESCo Meeting (2012-03-12) Note the time change in US!
Following is the list of topics that will be discussed in the FESCo meeting today at 18:00UTC (1:00pm EST, 2:00pm EDT) in #fedora-meeting on irc.freenode.net. Links to all tickets below can be found at: https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/report/9 = Followups = #topic #699 Proposal to remove the package tzdata from Critical Path .fesco 699 #topic #800 Feature Freeze exception: JBoss AS 7 .fesco 800 = New business = #topic #820 Feature Freeze exception: Mingw-w64 cross-compiler .fesco 820 #topic #707 Updates to language on FESCo Election page .fesco 707 #topic #819 Please review our determination of IPv6 issue blocker status .fesco 819 #topic #808 Unretiring policy (or Fedora policies in general) needs a common sense clause .fesco 808 = Open Floor = For more complete details, please visit each individual ticket. The report of the agenda items can be found at https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/report/9 If you would like to add something to this agenda, you can reply to this e-mail, file a new ticket at https://fedorahosted.org/fesco, e-mail me directly, or bring it up at the end of the meeting, during the open floor topic. Note that added topics may be deferred until the following meeting. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Non-free tarball checked in
That really should be a releng ticket not an infrastructure one. -- Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. Kevin Fenzi ke...@scrye.com wrote: On Sun, 11 Mar 2012 21:46:03 -0500 Bruno Wolff III br...@wolff.to wrote: I checked in a tarball for egoboo that turned out to have a non-free (noncommercial restriction) font file in it. The tarball has only been used for local builds (no scratch-builds). Do I need to remove this tarball from the lookaside cache? If so how do I do it? The hash is e6f3130695d297dcd9fe74e50bd59b68. Please file an infrastructure ticket (for tracking/logging purposes) and we can get it removed. kevin -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
[perl-File-Path-Tiny] update to 0.2
commit 6b30f5eee8e32a60cefeeceb82e5b547d245d6eb
Author: Iain Arnell iarn...@gmail.com
Date: Mon Mar 12 05:50:49 2012 -0600
update to 0.2
.gitignore |1 +
perl-File-Path-Tiny.spec |8 +---
sources |2 +-
3 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
---
diff --git a/.gitignore b/.gitignore
index 1854de2..18ab864 100644
--- a/.gitignore
+++ b/.gitignore
@@ -1 +1,2 @@
/File-Path-Tiny-0.1.tar.gz
+/File-Path-Tiny-0.2.tar.gz
diff --git a/perl-File-Path-Tiny.spec b/perl-File-Path-Tiny.spec
index ef170a7..6aa3395 100644
--- a/perl-File-Path-Tiny.spec
+++ b/perl-File-Path-Tiny.spec
@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
Name: perl-File-Path-Tiny
-Version:0.1
-Release:4%{?dist}
+Version:0.2
+Release:1%{?dist}
Summary:Recursive versions of mkdir() and rmdir() without as much
overhead as File::Path
License:GPL+ or Artistic
Group: Development/Libraries
@@ -38,12 +38,14 @@ find %{buildroot} -depth -type d -exec rmdir {} 2/dev/null
\;
make test
%files
-%defattr(-,root,root,-)
%doc Changes README
%{perl_vendorlib}/*
%{_mandir}/man3/*
%changelog
+* Mon Mar 12 2012 Iain Arnell iarn...@gmail.com 0.2-1
+- update to latest upstream version
+
* Fri Jan 13 2012 Fedora Release Engineering rel-...@lists.fedoraproject.org
- 0.1-4
- Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_17_Mass_Rebuild
diff --git a/sources b/sources
index e83afa4..e011876 100644
--- a/sources
+++ b/sources
@@ -1 +1 @@
-3a2ac2277304b6a1c017f24c8327f55a File-Path-Tiny-0.1.tar.gz
+2c4c23a5c673c94d86cdb82fd4069f7e File-Path-Tiny-0.2.tar.gz
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
perl-devel mailing list
perl-de...@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/perl-devel
Re: Non-free tarball checked in
On 03/12/2012 03:46 AM, Bruno Wolff III wrote: I checked in a tarball for egoboo that turned out to have a non-free (noncommercial restriction) font file in it. The tarball has only been used for local builds (no scratch-builds). Do I need to remove this tarball from the lookaside cache? If so how do I do it? The hash is e6f3130695d297dcd9fe74e50bd59b68. Does that mean any source tarballs containing non-free content should be repacked by the maintainer even if the source rpm doesn't install/use any of the non-free content? I've been recently commenting on a review where this might apply. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
[perl-File-ChangeNotify/f17] Update to 0.21
Summary of changes: 03c2751... Update to 0.21 (*) (*) This commit already existed in another branch; no separate mail sent -- Fedora Extras Perl SIG http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl perl-devel mailing list perl-de...@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/perl-devel
Re: Non-free tarball checked in
On Mon, 2012-03-12 at 13:01 +0100, Brendan Jones wrote: On 03/12/2012 03:46 AM, Bruno Wolff III wrote: I checked in a tarball for egoboo that turned out to have a non-free (noncommercial restriction) font file in it. The tarball has only been used for local builds (no scratch-builds). Do I need to remove this tarball from the lookaside cache? If so how do I do it? The hash is e6f3130695d297dcd9fe74e50bd59b68. Does that mean any source tarballs containing non-free content should be repacked by the maintainer even if the source rpm doesn't install/use any of the non-free content? I've been recently commenting on a review where this might apply. Yes, see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL#When_Upstream_uses_Prohibited_Code signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Non-free tarball checked in
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 08:19:38 -0400 Stephen Gallagher sgall...@redhat.com wrote: On Mon, 2012-03-12 at 13:01 +0100, Brendan Jones wrote: On 03/12/2012 03:46 AM, Bruno Wolff III wrote: I checked in a tarball for egoboo that turned out to have a non-free (noncommercial restriction) font file in it. The tarball has only been used for local builds (no scratch-builds). Do I need to remove this tarball from the lookaside cache? If so how do I do it? The hash is e6f3130695d297dcd9fe74e50bd59b68. Does that mean any source tarballs containing non-free content should be repacked by the maintainer even if the source rpm doesn't install/use any of the non-free content? I've been recently commenting on a review where this might apply. Yes, see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL#When_Upstream_uses_Prohibited_Code Also you should neverdo a scratch build with prohibited code/items. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.18 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAk9d7QkACgkQkSxm47BaWffvXQCdEKN9d0P8pl+UKPRiTRNUDoPc Rj8AmQGNcKVwqVkMX4C82RCw1t8qyO0E =/9AT -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
File Hash-MultiValue-0.12.tar.gz uploaded to lookaside cache by cheeselee
A file has been added to the lookaside cache for perl-Hash-MultiValue: 8a38d45faa630f27292e84c99f3c411b Hash-MultiValue-0.12.tar.gz -- Fedora Extras Perl SIG http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl perl-devel mailing list perl-de...@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/perl-devel
Re: Notice: IPv6 breaking issues tentatively considered blocker for F17
On 03/10/2012 03:31 PM, Tore Anderson wrote: Regarding this bug in particular, I'll just note that it there is already a precedent. In a default Fedora installation, traffic to the DHCPv4 client (which is the same binary as the DHCPv6 client) is allowed from the entire internet. From a security standpoint, blocking only one of the two does not make much sense. At least not to me, and there has been no attempt at an explanation for any other viewpoint that I'm aware of. There are also a few other problems that prevent IPv6-only from working out of the box. I have also nominated those as release blockers: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=538499#c65 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=798697#c3 Also, I also understand that the ip6tables service might be replaced with firewalld in F17 (cf. https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/805). If so, that would probably make #591630 irrelevant, however firewalld has IPv6 problems all on its own (even more so than just breaking DHCPv6, *all* IPv6 connectivity is broken by default), see: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=801182 I did not nominate this one as a blocker yet though, as I don't know if firewalld will indeed be made the default solution for F17. However, if it does, #801182 needs to be a release blocker as well. Best regards, With zone support in firewalld I'd like to start a discussion on the zones that should enable DHCPv6 client support. We have these zones: block all incoming connection requests blocked (rejected) dmz ssh enabled drop all incoming connecion requests dropped external ssh and masquerade enabled home ssh, ipp-client, mdns, samba-client, dhcpv6-client enabled internal ssh, ipp-client, mdns and sambla-client enabled publicssh enabled trusted all incoming connections allowed work ssh, ipp-client and dhcpv6-client enabled For now DHCPv6-client support is enabled in 'work' and 'home', but not in the default zone 'public'. Should we enable dhcpv6-client in the default zone and maybe others also? Thanks, Thomas -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Non-free tarball checked in
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 06:47:36 -0500, Dennis Gilmore den...@ausil.us wrote: That really should be a releng ticket not an infrastructure one. I have filed the following ticket for this issue: https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/5124 Thanks. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: NSS update to 3.13.3 coming soon
Elio Maldonado wrote: If you can, could you set the SSL_CBC_RANDOM_IV SSL option to PR_TRUE and try it and send us feedback on remaining sites or apps that syill break? IIRC, Office Communicator broke with this update when I tried to use the Pidgin plugin. Better send in the patch to Microsoft, too. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: NSS update to 3.13.3 coming soon
Michael Cronenworth wrote: IIRC, Office Communicator broke with this update when I tried to use the Pidgin plugin. Better send in the patch to Microsoft, too. Ah, yes, here it is: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=770682 -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Need help with GNOME ?
On Sun, 2012-03-11 at 19:03 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: On Sun, 2012-03-11 at 18:49 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: On Sun, 2012-03-11 at 15:48 -0400, Cole Robinson wrote: which has a lot of people tacked on as well (not sure why abrt couldn't handle the other 60 though...) It ain't glamorous, but all those extra bugs should probably just be duped to that report. You could do that in about ten seconds with python-bugzilla, I think. Huh. I take that back. Seems neither python-bugzilla nor Bugzilla's own 'modify several bugs at once' page is capable of marking multiple bugs as duplicates of one other bug. You can close a big set of bugs with any other resolution, but DUPLICATE does not appear to be possible. Interesting. I actually have a patch for this in my local copy of python-bugzilla, so, thank you for reminding me to get that upstreamed. Bug filed: https://fedorahosted.org/python-bugzilla/ticket/40 - ajax signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
[Test-Announce] Test Day 2012-03-15: GNOME Shell and Extensions
There will be a GNOME Shell and Extensions Test Day on Thursday! https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Day:2012-03-15_Gnome_Shell_and_Extensions Here's an introduction from Vitezslav Humpa, who's in charge of this event from QA perspective: While Fedora 17 Test Day cycle is starting to take speed, this week's Test Day is focusing on Gnome 3 again, in particular the gnome-shell extension management. Since the release of the new Gnome about a year ago there has been a great progress in ways one can customize it. Remember applets, desktop widgets etc. back in Gnome 2? Missed them? Now we have all that back in form of Gnome shell extensions! Shell's architecture makes it relatively painless to make them and lots of useful extensions are already out. There are several ways one can manage them. In addition to having gnome-tweak-tool, extension management has also been integrated with web browsers and https://extensions.gnome.org/. There you can search for and install extensions as well as generally manage them - all directly from the web. Haven't tried it yet? Go on, it's really nice! And while you're at it, you can kill two birds by a single stone by joining the Fedora Test Day as you explore the world of customizing your Gnome. Date: 2012-03-15 Time: all day What: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Day:2012-03-15_Gnome_Shell_and_Extensions Where: #fedora-test-day ___ test-announce mailing list test-annou...@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test-announce -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Notice: IPv6 breaking issues tentatively considered blocker for F17
On 03/12/2012 01:41 PM, Thomas Woerner wrote: With zone support in firewalld I'd like to start a discussion on the zones that should enable DHCPv6 client support. For now DHCPv6-client support is enabled in 'work' and 'home', but not in the default zone 'public'. Should we enable dhcpv6-client in the default zone and maybe others also? I'd say yes. That would make my patch [1] for NM and the follow-up comments [2] pointless. [1] http://mail.gnome.org/archives/networkmanager-list/2012-March/msg00030.html [2] http://mail.gnome.org/archives/networkmanager-list/2012-March/msg00048.html -- Jiri -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Notice: IPv6 breaking issues tentatively considered blocker for F17
On Mon, 12 Mar 2012, Jiri Popelka wrote: On 03/12/2012 01:41 PM, Thomas Woerner wrote: With zone support in firewalld I'd like to start a discussion on the zones that should enable DHCPv6 client support. For now DHCPv6-client support is enabled in 'work' and 'home', but not in the default zone 'public'. Should we enable dhcpv6-client in the default zone and maybe others also? I'd say yes. That would make my patch [1] for NM and the follow-up comments [2] pointless. [1] http://mail.gnome.org/archives/networkmanager-list/2012-March/msg00030.html [2] http://mail.gnome.org/archives/networkmanager-list/2012-March/msg00048.html +1 Paul -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
[perl-Env-Sanctify/el5] Initial import (perl-Env-Sanctify-1.04-2)
Summary of changes: 17b55c3... Initial import (perl-Env-Sanctify-1.04-2) (*) (*) This commit already existed in another branch; no separate mail sent -- Fedora Extras Perl SIG http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl perl-devel mailing list perl-de...@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/perl-devel
Re: [Test-Announce] Test Day 2012-03-15: GNOME Shell and Extensions
On Mon, 2012-03-12 at 10:07 -0400, Kamil Paral wrote: There will be a GNOME Shell and Extensions Test Day on Thursday! https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Day:2012-03-15_Gnome_Shell_and_Extensions Here's an introduction from Vitezslav Humpa, who's in charge of this event from QA perspective: While Fedora 17 Test Day cycle is starting to take speed, this week's Test Day is focusing on Gnome 3 again, in particular the gnome-shell extension management. Since the release of the new Gnome about a year ago there has been a great progress in ways one can customize it. Remember applets, desktop widgets etc. back in Gnome 2? Missed them? Now we have all that back in form of Gnome shell extensions! Shell's architecture makes it relatively painless to make them and lots of useful extensions are already out. There are several ways one can manage them. In addition to having gnome-tweak-tool, extension management has also been integrated with web browsers and https://extensions.gnome.org/. There you can search for and install extensions as well as generally manage them - all directly from the web. Haven't tried it yet? Go on, it's really nice! And while you're at it, you can kill two birds by a single stone by joining the Fedora Test Day as you explore the world of customizing your Gnome. I know this should most likely be directed at upstream Gnome, but would it be possible to redesign extensions.gnome.org so that it's... usable? I mean, it's a list of extensions, ten to a page, ordered by popularity, name or number of downloads. Would it be so hard to add tags or categories of functionality? Right now, I have to read through fourteen pages (and growing!) to get any idea of whether an extension happens to provide a feature I might want. I like gnome-shell, and I'd like to tweak it a little bit to fit my needs better. But the extension website is so difficult to navigate that it's really a deterrent. It will only get worse as people continue to write new extensions (which, because of the default ordering of popularity will always show up in the later pages of the site first). signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
[pkgdb] ocaml-camlimages ownership changed
Package ocaml-camlimages in Fedora devel is now owned by bruno To make changes to this package see: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/acls/name/ocaml-camlimages ___ ocaml-devel mailing list ocaml-de...@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/ocaml-devel
[perl-Env-Sanctify] Created tag perl-Env-Sanctify-1.04-2.el5
The lightweight tag 'perl-Env-Sanctify-1.04-2.el5' was created pointing to: 17b55c3... Initial import (perl-Env-Sanctify-1.04-2) -- Fedora Extras Perl SIG http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl perl-devel mailing list perl-de...@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/perl-devel
[perl-Env-Sanctify] Created tag perl-Env-Sanctify-1.04-2.el6
The lightweight tag 'perl-Env-Sanctify-1.04-2.el6' was created pointing to: 17b55c3... Initial import (perl-Env-Sanctify-1.04-2) -- Fedora Extras Perl SIG http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl perl-devel mailing list perl-de...@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/perl-devel
[perl-Env-Sanctify] Created tag perl-Env-Sanctify-1.04-2.fc15
The lightweight tag 'perl-Env-Sanctify-1.04-2.fc15' was created pointing to: 17b55c3... Initial import (perl-Env-Sanctify-1.04-2) -- Fedora Extras Perl SIG http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl perl-devel mailing list perl-de...@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/perl-devel
[perl-Env-Sanctify] Created tag perl-Env-Sanctify-1.04-2.fc16
The lightweight tag 'perl-Env-Sanctify-1.04-2.fc16' was created pointing to: 17b55c3... Initial import (perl-Env-Sanctify-1.04-2) -- Fedora Extras Perl SIG http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl perl-devel mailing list perl-de...@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/perl-devel
[perl-Env-Sanctify] Created tag perl-Env-Sanctify-1.04-2.fc17
The lightweight tag 'perl-Env-Sanctify-1.04-2.fc17' was created pointing to: 17b55c3... Initial import (perl-Env-Sanctify-1.04-2) -- Fedora Extras Perl SIG http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl perl-devel mailing list perl-de...@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/perl-devel
[perl-Env-Sanctify] Created tag perl-Env-Sanctify-1.04-2.fc18
The lightweight tag 'perl-Env-Sanctify-1.04-2.fc18' was created pointing to: 17b55c3... Initial import (perl-Env-Sanctify-1.04-2) -- Fedora Extras Perl SIG http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl perl-devel mailing list perl-de...@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/perl-devel
Review swap: Summoning Wars
Hi, I would appreciate a review of this hack n slash RPG game. Everything FOSS: GPLv3+ code and CC-BY-SA assets. sumwars.org for more info. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=801092 I am not a sponsor so I can only swap with you if you already are a Fedora packager. -- Martin Preisler -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Review swap: Summoning Wars
On 03/12/2012 04:22 PM, Martin Preisler wrote: Hi, I would appreciate a review of this hack n slash RPG game. Everything FOSS: GPLv3+ code and CC-BY-SA assets. sumwars.org for more info. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=801092 I am not a sponsor so I can only swap with you if you already are a Fedora packager. I'd be happy to if you could take https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=784605 thanks Brendan -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
[Test-Announce] Test Day: USB 3.0
Shiver me timbers! It's time for another Beefy Test Day, Argh! Tomorrow, 13 March, is the USB 3.0 Test Day! https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Day:2012-03-13_USB_3.0 Testing is easy; just use your favourite up-to-date Fedora 17 image (Live or Install); everything is included! The testing will require that you have some sort of USB 3.0 hardware to plug into your box. The Wiki page delves deeper into how and what to test. The maintainers and some of the usual crew will be hanging out in #fedora-test-day and #fedora-qa. Ping anyone in either of those channels if you require assistance. To recap for those of you too busy trying to deliver the pizza before the Ninjas: What: USB 3.0 https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Day:2012-03-13_USB_3.0 When: All day 03/13 Where: #fedora-test-day Captain John. ___ test-announce mailing list test-annou...@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test-announce-- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
why are is subversion 1.7 for F16/F17 removed
working since many motnhs with: subversion-1.7.0-2.fc15.x86_64 subversion-libs-1.7.0-2.fc15.x86_64 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/packageinfo?packageID=752 all the 1.7 packages are removed for F15/F16 now so after distro-sync to F16 downgradded to subversion-1.6.17-5.fc16.x86_64 and now? WHY are they removed from koji? svn: The path '/www/thelounge.net/contentlounge/updateservice/package' appears to be part of a Subversion 1.7 or greater working copy. Please upgrade your Subversion client to use this working copy. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Notice: IPv6 breaking issues tentatively considered blocker for F17
On Sat, 10 Mar 2012 07:46:56 -0600 Chris Adams cmad...@hiwaay.net wrote: DHCPv6 is not the only way to configure dynamic IPv6; my home network is using SLAAC. IMHO that will probably be more common in home and other small networks. This may be the case for the network that you or I run, but not for providers. Comcast require DHCPv6 (otherwise they can't delegate /64 automatically). -- Pete -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
[perl-Language-Prolog-Sugar/f16] Import
Summary of changes: 0b06b74... Import (*) (*) This commit already existed in another branch; no separate mail sent -- Fedora Extras Perl SIG http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl perl-devel mailing list perl-de...@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/perl-devel
Re: Review swap: Summoning Wars
Looks interesting, I am reviewing your package. -- Martin Preisler - Original Message - From: Brendan Jones brendan.jones...@gmail.com To: devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Sent: Monday, March 12, 2012 4:26:34 PM Subject: Re: Review swap: Summoning Wars On 03/12/2012 04:22 PM, Martin Preisler wrote: Hi, I would appreciate a review of this hack n slash RPG game. Everything FOSS: GPLv3+ code and CC-BY-SA assets. sumwars.org for more info. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=801092 I am not a sponsor so I can only swap with you if you already are a Fedora packager. I'd be happy to if you could take https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=784605 thanks Brendan -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
[389-devel] please review ticket#271 - Slow shutdown when you have 100+ replication agreements
https://fedorahosted.org/389/ticket/271 https://fedorahosted.org/389/attachment/ticket/271/0001-Ticket-271-Slow-shutdown-when-you-have-100-replicati.patch Thanks, Mark -- 389-devel mailing list 389-de...@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/389-devel
Re: Non-free tarball checked in
Il 12/03/2012 13:33, Dennis Gilmore ha scritto: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 08:19:38 -0400 Stephen Gallaghersgall...@redhat.com wrote: On Mon, 2012-03-12 at 13:01 +0100, Brendan Jones wrote: On 03/12/2012 03:46 AM, Bruno Wolff III wrote: I checked in a tarball for egoboo that turned out to have a non-free (noncommercial restriction) font file in it. The tarball has only been used for local builds (no scratch-builds). Do I need to remove this tarball from the lookaside cache? If so how do I do it? The hash is e6f3130695d297dcd9fe74e50bd59b68. Does that mean any source tarballs containing non-free content should be repacked by the maintainer even if the source rpm doesn't install/use any of the non-free content? I've been recently commenting on a review where this might apply. Yes, see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL#When_Upstream_uses_Prohibited_Code Also you should neverdo a scratch build with prohibited code/items. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.18 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAk9d7QkACgkQkSxm47BaWffvXQCdEKN9d0P8pl+UKPRiTRNUDoPc Rj8AmQGNcKVwqVkMX4C82RCw1t8qyO0E =/9AT -END PGP SIGNATURE- And what about for pre-built binary files contained in source that are not installed in the final rpm (ex. deleted in the %setup stage)? Should the source be purged from those? -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Non-free tarball checked in
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 12:17 PM, Mattia Verga mattia.ve...@tiscali.it wrote: Il 12/03/2012 13:33, Dennis Gilmore ha scritto: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 08:19:38 -0400 Stephen Gallaghersgall...@redhat.com wrote: On Mon, 2012-03-12 at 13:01 +0100, Brendan Jones wrote: On 03/12/2012 03:46 AM, Bruno Wolff III wrote: I checked in a tarball for egoboo that turned out to have a non-free (noncommercial restriction) font file in it. The tarball has only been used for local builds (no scratch-builds). Do I need to remove this tarball from the lookaside cache? If so how do I do it? The hash is e6f3130695d297dcd9fe74e50bd59b68. Does that mean any source tarballs containing non-free content should be repacked by the maintainer even if the source rpm doesn't install/use any of the non-free content? I've been recently commenting on a review where this might apply. Yes, see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL#When_Upstream_uses_Prohibited_Code Also you should neverdo a scratch build with prohibited code/items. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.18 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAk9d7QkACgkQkSxm47BaWffvXQCdEKN9d0P8pl+UKPRiTRNUDoPc Rj8AmQGNcKVwqVkMX4C82RCw1t8qyO0E =/9AT -END PGP SIGNATURE- And what about for pre-built binary files contained in source that are not installed in the final rpm (ex. deleted in the %setup stage)? Should the source be purged from those? If the licensing is such that they can't be redistributed, yes. -J -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel -- in your fear, seek only peace in your fear, seek only love -d. bowie -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Non-free tarball checked in
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 12:21:52 -0500, Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 12:17 PM, Mattia Verga mattia.ve...@tiscali.it wrote: And what about for pre-built binary files contained in source that are not installed in the final rpm (ex. deleted in the %setup stage)? Should the source be purged from those? If the licensing is such that they can't be redistributed, yes. Does that cover GPL binaries where we are sure we have the specific source versions that correspond to the binaries? For example pdf files, which I suspect might have been created from odt files, but I am not sure I can get the versions of the odt files that match the included pdf files? -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: why are is subversion 1.7 for F16/F17 removed
Am 12.03.2012 17:44, schrieb Paul Howarth: On 03/12/2012 03:43 PM, Reindl Harald wrote: working since many motnhs with: subversion-1.7.0-2.fc15.x86_64 subversion-libs-1.7.0-2.fc15.x86_64 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/packageinfo?packageID=752 all the 1.7 packages are removed for F15/F16 now so after distro-sync to F16 downgradded to subversion-1.6.17-5.fc16.x86_64 and now? WHY are they removed from koji? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Koji/GarbageCollection I guess the maintainer decided against pushing that version as an update to a stable release. fine, and now i have no chance to use subversion any longer on F16 because i tested 1.7 since long ago, all worked fine and i converted my subversion data many months ago with the major benefit that the possible dangerous .svn folders are no longer needed and you have not to care prvent put them on a wbeserver the F17 src.rpm can not be rebuilded with rpmbuild --rebuild on F16 because BuildRequirements - so i am f**ed up because tessted and expected after all is running fine this was pushed to stable updates long ago signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Non-free tarball checked in
On Mon, 2012-03-12 at 12:21 -0500, Jon Ciesla wrote: On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 12:17 PM, Mattia Verga mattia.ve...@tiscali.it wrote: Il 12/03/2012 13:33, Dennis Gilmore ha scritto: On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 08:19:38 -0400 Stephen Gallaghersgall...@redhat.com wrote: On Mon, 2012-03-12 at 13:01 +0100, Brendan Jones wrote: On 03/12/2012 03:46 AM, Bruno Wolff III wrote: I checked in a tarball for egoboo that turned out to have a non-free (noncommercial restriction) font file in it. The tarball has only been used for local builds (no scratch-builds). Do I need to remove this tarball from the lookaside cache? If so how do I do it? The hash is e6f3130695d297dcd9fe74e50bd59b68. Does that mean any source tarballs containing non-free content should be repacked by the maintainer even if the source rpm doesn't install/use any of the non-free content? I've been recently commenting on a review where this might apply. Yes, see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL#When_Upstream_uses_Prohibited_Code Also you should neverdo a scratch build with prohibited code/items. And what about for pre-built binary files contained in source that are not installed in the final rpm (ex. deleted in the %setup stage)? Should the source be purged from those? If the licensing is such that they can't be redistributed, yes. -J So for something that is, say CC-BY-NonCommercial, it would be okay to ship in the SRPM but not in the RPM? -- Martin Erik Werner martinerikwer...@gmail.com signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: why are is subversion 1.7 for F16/F17 removed
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 12:02 PM, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net wrote: Am 12.03.2012 17:44, schrieb Paul Howarth: On 03/12/2012 03:43 PM, Reindl Harald wrote: working since many motnhs with: subversion-1.7.0-2.fc15.x86_64 subversion-libs-1.7.0-2.fc15.x86_64 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/packageinfo?packageID=752 all the 1.7 packages are removed for F15/F16 now so after distro-sync to F16 downgradded to subversion-1.6.17-5.fc16.x86_64 and now? WHY are they removed from koji? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Koji/GarbageCollection I guess the maintainer decided against pushing that version as an update to a stable release. fine, and now i have no chance to use subversion any longer on F16 because i tested 1.7 since long ago, all worked fine and i converted my subversion data many months ago with the major benefit that the possible dangerous .svn folders are no longer needed and you have not to care prvent put them on a wbeserver the F17 src.rpm can not be rebuilded with rpmbuild --rebuild on F16 because BuildRequirements - so i am f**ed up because tessted and expected after all is running fine this was pushed to stable updates long ago No, it looks like it stayed in testing because the version was updated. I don't see where it was ever in stable. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-2673 -J -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel -- in your fear, seek only peace in your fear, seek only love -d. bowie -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Non-free tarball checked in
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 12:41 PM, Martin Erik Werner martinerikwer...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, 2012-03-12 at 12:21 -0500, Jon Ciesla wrote: On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 12:17 PM, Mattia Verga mattia.ve...@tiscali.it wrote: Il 12/03/2012 13:33, Dennis Gilmore ha scritto: On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 08:19:38 -0400 Stephen Gallaghersgall...@redhat.com wrote: On Mon, 2012-03-12 at 13:01 +0100, Brendan Jones wrote: On 03/12/2012 03:46 AM, Bruno Wolff III wrote: I checked in a tarball for egoboo that turned out to have a non-free (noncommercial restriction) font file in it. The tarball has only been used for local builds (no scratch-builds). Do I need to remove this tarball from the lookaside cache? If so how do I do it? The hash is e6f3130695d297dcd9fe74e50bd59b68. Does that mean any source tarballs containing non-free content should be repacked by the maintainer even if the source rpm doesn't install/use any of the non-free content? I've been recently commenting on a review where this might apply. Yes, see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL#When_Upstream_uses_Prohibited_Code Also you should neverdo a scratch build with prohibited code/items. And what about for pre-built binary files contained in source that are not installed in the final rpm (ex. deleted in the %setup stage)? Should the source be purged from those? If the licensing is such that they can't be redistributed, yes. -J So for something that is, say CC-BY-NonCommercial, it would be okay to ship in the SRPM but not in the RPM? Neither, actually. See Bad Licences. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing#SoftwareLicenses -J -- Martin Erik Werner martinerikwer...@gmail.com -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel -- in your fear, seek only peace in your fear, seek only love -d. bowie -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Non-free tarball checked in
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 6:33 PM, Bruno Wolff III br...@wolff.to wrote: On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 12:21:52 -0500, Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 12:17 PM, Mattia Verga mattia.ve...@tiscali.it wrote: And what about for pre-built binary files contained in source that are not installed in the final rpm (ex. deleted in the %setup stage)? Should the source be purged from those? If the licensing is such that they can't be redistributed, yes. Does that cover GPL binaries where we are sure we have the specific source versions that correspond to the binaries? For example pdf files, which I suspect might have been created from odt files, but I am not sure I can get the versions of the odt files that match the included pdf files? IANAL but I would call the odt source code and the pdf binary but just use the term documentation for either. It is not a binary in the sense of compiled code. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: [Test-Announce] Test Day 2012-03-15: GNOME Shell and Extensions
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 4:07 PM, Stephen Gallagher sgall...@redhat.com wrote: On Mon, 2012-03-12 at 10:07 -0400, Kamil Paral wrote: There will be a GNOME Shell and Extensions Test Day on Thursday! https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Day:2012-03-15_Gnome_Shell_and_Extensions Here's an introduction from Vitezslav Humpa, who's in charge of this event from QA perspective: While Fedora 17 Test Day cycle is starting to take speed, this week's Test Day is focusing on Gnome 3 again, in particular the gnome-shell extension management. Since the release of the new Gnome about a year ago there has been a great progress in ways one can customize it. Remember applets, desktop widgets etc. back in Gnome 2? Missed them? Now we have all that back in form of Gnome shell extensions! Shell's architecture makes it relatively painless to make them and lots of useful extensions are already out. The site is still being worked on as indicated by the big red Alpha label. Filtering is planned to for GNOME 3.4 which should make finding extensions easier. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Notice: IPv6 breaking issues tentatively considered blocker for F17
On Mon, 2012-03-12 at 09:59 -0600, Pete Zaitcev wrote: On Sat, 10 Mar 2012 07:46:56 -0600 Chris Adams cmad...@hiwaay.net wrote: DHCPv6 is not the only way to configure dynamic IPv6; my home network is using SLAAC. IMHO that will probably be more common in home and other small networks. This may be the case for the network that you or I run, but not for providers. Comcast require DHCPv6 (otherwise they can't delegate /64 automatically). Do they send RAs at all? If so, which (if either) of the other and managed flags are set? If they don't, do they just expect DHCPv6 to be magically run, and what gets used for the default gateway address given that DHCPv6 has no such option? I'd love to know... Dan -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Need help with GNOME ?
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 09:49:18AM -0400, Adam Jackson wrote: On Sun, 2012-03-11 at 19:03 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: On Sun, 2012-03-11 at 18:49 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: On Sun, 2012-03-11 at 15:48 -0400, Cole Robinson wrote: which has a lot of people tacked on as well (not sure why abrt couldn't handle the other 60 though...) It ain't glamorous, but all those extra bugs should probably just be duped to that report. You could do that in about ten seconds with python-bugzilla, I think. Huh. I take that back. Seems neither python-bugzilla nor Bugzilla's own 'modify several bugs at once' page is capable of marking multiple bugs as duplicates of one other bug. You can close a big set of bugs with any other resolution, but DUPLICATE does not appear to be possible. Interesting. I actually have a patch for this in my local copy of python-bugzilla, so, thank you for reminding me to get that upstreamed. Bug filed: https://fedorahosted.org/python-bugzilla/ticket/40 We should ask Will Woods when we can expect a new release -- it's been ~9 months since the last one, and several fixes I'd like are either in the repo or waiting in tickets. This is a great one, thanks ajax. -- Paul W. Frieldshttp://paul.frields.org/ gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717 http://redhat.com/ - - - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/ The open source story continues to grow: http://opensource.com -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Review swap: Summoning Wars
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 11:22:05 -0400, Martin Preisler mprei...@redhat.com wrote: Hi, I would appreciate a review of this hack n slash RPG game. Everything FOSS: GPLv3+ code and CC-BY-SA assets. sumwars.org for more info. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=801092 I am not a sponsor so I can only swap with you if you already are a Fedora packager. Thanks for doing this! I was looking at the lastest release about a week ago and it is much better than previous releases for packaging. It looks like a cool game that unfortunately probably won't run on my video cards at home. I did notice tinyxml and enet were bundled with it. You should note that enet will be being upgraded to 1.3.3 (from 1.2.x) in f17 and f18 this week. Whether or not that gets done in f15 and f16 is up for argument. f15 probably wouldn't be worth doing, but someone is working on cube2 and it may be worth getting 1.3 updated in f16 so we can get cube2 there. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: why are is subversion 1.7 for F16/F17 removed
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 12:46:08PM -0500, Jon Ciesla wrote: On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 12:44 PM, Jesse Keating jkeat...@j2solutions.net wrote: On 3/12/12 10:43 AM, Jon Ciesla wrote: No, it looks like it stayed in testing because the version was updated. I don't see where it was ever in stable. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-2673 He expected that it /would/ be pushed to stable. Well, yes. And I can understand that. But as you said, that's no guarantee it'll ever hit stable. If needed, the OP should be able to scratch-build the 1.7.0-2 packages from the package git repository, or (hopefully) some later and presumably improved 1.7.x version. +1 on the guarantee, but that doesn't help the OP if he has converted repos. Caveat emptor. -- Paul W. Frieldshttp://paul.frields.org/ gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717 http://redhat.com/ - - - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/ The open source story continues to grow: http://opensource.com -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Need help with GNOME ?
On 12.3.2012 03:03, Adam Williamson wrote: You could do that in about ten seconds with python-bugzilla, I think. Huh. I take that back. Seems neither python-bugzilla nor Bugzilla's own 'modify several bugs at once' page is capable of marking multiple bugs as duplicates of one other bug. You can close a big set of bugs with any other resolution, but DUPLICATE does not appear to be possible. Interesting. https://gitorious.org/addon-sdk/mass-close-duplicates should do it. If it works with currently supported Firefox, I don't know. Matěj -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Notice: IPv6 breaking issues tentatively considered blocker for F17
On Sat, 2012-03-10 at 15:31 +0100, Tore Anderson wrote: * Adam Williamson At the meeting, we made the call that IPv6-only networks are becoming a configuration sufficiently important that a serious breach of the criteria in the context of an IPv6-only network is significant enough to be considered a release blocker, and we accepted the bug as a blocker. Thank you! This is very welcome news. It is about time Fedora joins rank with the likes of Apple Mac OS X and Microsoft Windows in supporting IPv6-only networks out of the box, especially given Fedora's «First» core value. Getting the IPv6 migration moving is getting increasingly urgent, with one part of the world (East Asia-Pacific) already out of available IPv4 addresses and another (EMEA) set to deplete in a few months, the dual-stack transition plan originally envisioned by the IETF is simply not going to work, there are simply not enough IPv4 addresses to last us through the entire transition period. IPv6-only networks are therefore inevitable, and it is important that from the end users' point of view, they work just as smoothly and in a plugplay fashion as any other dual-stacked or IPv4-only network. Obviously this is a pretty significant call that would set a precedent for future releases and proposed blockers, so we wanted to flag it up for wider discussion in case anyone thinks it was the wrong way to go. For a long time, there have been bugs open and patches made available, yet the issue has remained unresolved for several releases straight. For that reason, I believe a more forceful incentive is essential if we are get the patches applied and the bugs closed before yet another release goes out the door without proper IPv6 support. I therefore strongly support the use of the release blocker mechanism. 18:41:26 buggbot Bug 591630: high, urgent, ---, twoerner, ASSIGNED, DHCPv6 responses are not allowed by default ip6tables ruleset Regarding this bug in particular, I'll just note that it there is already a precedent. In a default Fedora installation, traffic to the DHCPv4 client (which is the same binary as the DHCPv6 client) is allowed from the entire internet. From a security standpoint, blocking only one of the two does not make much sense. At least not to me, and there has been no attempt at an explanation for any other viewpoint that I'm aware of. There are also a few other problems that prevent IPv6-only from working out of the box. I have also nominated those as release blockers: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=538499#c65 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=798697#c3 Also, I also understand that the ip6tables service might be replaced with firewalld in F17 (cf. https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/805). If so, that would probably make #591630 irrelevant, however firewalld has IPv6 problems all on its own (even more so than just breaking DHCPv6, *all* IPv6 connectivity is broken by default), see: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=801182 I did not nominate this one as a blocker yet though, as I don't know if firewalld will indeed be made the default solution for F17. However, if it does, #801182 needs to be a release blocker as well. Thanks for this very informative post, Tore. I'll review the other bugs you mentioned and the ones you've nominated as blockers. It occurs to me that there's rather a lot of 'moving parts' here, and the next blocker review meeting isn't till Friday. I think if we just leave things to the normal blocker handling process here we may wind up struggling for time. So I'm thinking of trying to convene an impromptu 'IPv6 working group', and trying to get the relevant developers - NetworkManager, iptables, firewalld, possibly initscripts for non-NM configurations? - and those users/testers who seem very clued up about IPv6 'together' to try and expedite the process of making this stuff work. I'll probably do this today just by sending out a mass-CCed email to everyone who seems to have skin in the game. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora http://www.happyassassin.net -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: why are is subversion 1.7 for F16/F17 removed
Am 12.03.2012 18:46, schrieb Jon Ciesla: On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 12:44 PM, Jesse Keating jkeat...@j2solutions.net wrote: On 3/12/12 10:43 AM, Jon Ciesla wrote: No, it looks like it stayed in testing because the version was updated. I don't see where it was ever in stable. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-2673 He expected that it /would/ be pushed to stable. Well, yes. And I can understand that. But as you said, that's no guarantee it'll ever hit stable. but what should i do now a half year later i need subversion = 1.7.0, this was installed until today i upgraded to F16 and worked well currently tehre is not working = 1.7.x package for F16 available anywhere signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: why are is subversion 1.7 for F16/F17 removed
Am 12.03.2012 19:16, schrieb Paul W. Frields: On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 12:46:08PM -0500, Jon Ciesla wrote: On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 12:44 PM, Jesse Keating jkeat...@j2solutions.net wrote: On 3/12/12 10:43 AM, Jon Ciesla wrote: No, it looks like it stayed in testing because the version was updated. I don't see where it was ever in stable. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-2673 He expected that it /would/ be pushed to stable. Well, yes. And I can understand that. But as you said, that's no guarantee it'll ever hit stable. If needed, the OP should be able to scratch-build the 1.7.0-2 packages from the package git repository, or (hopefully) some later and presumably improved 1.7.x version. +1 on the guarantee, but that doesn't help the OP if he has converted repos. Caveat emptor. i tried a rpmbuild --rebuild with one of the later F17 src.rpm on my F16 build-vm but it failed because build-requirements signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: why are is subversion 1.7 for F16/F17 removed
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 12:48 PM, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net wrote: Am 12.03.2012 18:46, schrieb Jon Ciesla: On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 12:44 PM, Jesse Keating jkeat...@j2solutions.net wrote: On 3/12/12 10:43 AM, Jon Ciesla wrote: No, it looks like it stayed in testing because the version was updated. I don't see where it was ever in stable. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-2673 He expected that it /would/ be pushed to stable. Well, yes. And I can understand that. But as you said, that's no guarantee it'll ever hit stable. but what should i do now a half year later i need subversion = 1.7.0, this was installed until today i upgraded to F16 and worked well currently tehre is not working = 1.7.x package for F16 available anywhere I'm not sure. Install the build deps needed to rebuild the f17 SRPMs? -J -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel -- in your fear, seek only peace in your fear, seek only love -d. bowie -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: why are is subversion 1.7 for F16/F17 removed
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 2:46 PM, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net wrote: Am 12.03.2012 19:16, schrieb Paul W. Frields: On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 12:46:08PM -0500, Jon Ciesla wrote: On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 12:44 PM, Jesse Keating jkeat...@j2solutions.net wrote: On 3/12/12 10:43 AM, Jon Ciesla wrote: No, it looks like it stayed in testing because the version was updated. I don't see where it was ever in stable. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-2673 He expected that it /would/ be pushed to stable. Well, yes. And I can understand that. But as you said, that's no guarantee it'll ever hit stable. If needed, the OP should be able to scratch-build the 1.7.0-2 packages from the package git repository, or (hopefully) some later and presumably improved 1.7.x version. +1 on the guarantee, but that doesn't help the OP if he has converted repos. Caveat emptor. i tried a rpmbuild --rebuild with one of the later F17 src.rpm on my F16 build-vm but it failed because build-requirements [jwboyer@zod fedora]$ fedpkg clone subversion Cloning into 'subversion'... remote: Counting objects: 1329, done. remote: Compressing objects: 100% (768/768), done. remote: Total 1329 (delta 664), reused 1064 (delta 502) Receiving objects: 100% (1329/1329), 496.62 KiB | 489 KiB/s, done. Resolving deltas: 100% (664/664), done. [jwboyer@zod fedora]$ cd subversion/ [jwboyer@zod subversion]$ fedpkg switch-branch f16 Branch f16 set up to track remote branch f16 from origin. [jwboyer@zod subversion]$ fedpkg scratch-build cat: /usr/include/httpd/.mmn: No such file or directory sh: ruby: command not found sh: ruby: command not found sh: ruby: command not found cat: /usr/include/httpd/.mmn: No such file or directory sh: ruby: command not found sh: ruby: command not found sh: ruby: command not found Building subversion-1.7.1-1.fc16 for f16-candidate Created task: 3887068 Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3887068 Watching tasks (this may be safely interrupted)... 3887068 build (f16-candidate, /subversion:d882fd1d57d847e251ccd5a888282200e54cd45b): free 3887068 build (f16-candidate, /subversion:d882fd1d57d847e251ccd5a888282200e54cd45b): free - open (ppc12.phx2.fedoraproject.org) 3887071 buildSRPMFromSCM (/subversion:d882fd1d57d847e251ccd5a888282200e54cd45b): open (x86-13.phx2.fedoraproject.org) If that works, then there you go. If not, then you can figure out why and duplicate the same steps. josh -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: why are is subversion 1.7 for F16/F17 removed
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 6:02 PM, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net wrote: the F17 src.rpm can not be rebuilded with rpmbuild --rebuild on F16 because BuildRequirements - so i am f**ed up because tessted and expected after all is running fine this was pushed to stable updates long ago Well that does not help you now but to avoid hitting this situation again ... don't do the testing on productive systems. Do the testing in a separate system (or in a VM). -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Summary minutes for today's FESCo meeting (2012-03-12)
=== #fedora-meeting: FESCO (2012-03-12) === Meeting started by t8m at 18:02:05 UTC. The full logs are available at http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2012-03-12/fesco.2012-03-12-18.02.log.html . Meeting summary --- * init process (t8m, 18:02:39) * #699 Proposal to remove the package tzdata from Critical Path (t8m, 18:05:03) * LINK: http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/teams/fesco/fesco.2011-11-21-18.00.log.html#l-115 (nirik, 18:13:02) * Deferred to next meeting (t8m, 18:54:26) * #800 Feature Freeze exception: JBoss AS 7 (t8m, 18:54:29) * LINK: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/JBossAS7 has the packaging status (nirik, 18:56:52) * AGREED: The feature freeze exception for JBoss AS 7 is granted. (t8m, 18:57:42) * #820 Feature Freeze exception: Mingw-w64 cross-compiler (t8m, 18:58:13) * AGREED: The feature freeze exception for Mingw-w64 cross-compiler is granted (t8m, 19:00:47) * #707 Updates to language on FESCo Election page (t8m, 19:01:45) * AGREED: The updates to the FESCo Election page as described in the ticket are approved. (t8m, 19:04:14) * ACTION: t8m will update the page (t8m, 19:05:45) * #819 Please review our determination of IPv6 issue blocker status (t8m, 19:06:03) * AGREED: FESCo agrees with the IPv6 issue blocker status. (t8m, 19:07:54) * #808 Unretiring policy (or Fedora policies in general) needs a common sense clause (t8m, 19:08:21) * AGREED: Packages may be unretired without review up to 2 weeks after retirement providing that the package has ever previously been reviewed (t8m, 19:19:00) * ACTION: t8m will update the orphaning page and announce it on devel (t8m, 19:20:40) * Next week chair (t8m, 19:24:08) * ACTION: limburgher will be the next week chair (t8m, 19:27:23) * Open floor (t8m, 19:28:24) Meeting ended at 19:31:23 UTC. Action Items * t8m will update the page * t8m will update the orphaning page and announce it on devel * limburgher will be the next week chair Action Items, by person --- * limburgher * limburgher will be the next week chair * t8m * t8m will update the page * t8m will update the orphaning page and announce it on devel * **UNASSIGNED** * (none) People Present (lines said) --- * t8m (101) * nirik (63) * mjg59 (55) * mitr (47) * notting (31) * pjones (29) * limburgher (29) * zodbot (10) * adamw (5) * dgilmore (1) * sgallagh (0) * mmaslano (0) Generated by `MeetBot`_ 0.1.4 .. _`MeetBot`: http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Notice: IPv6 breaking issues tentatively considered blocker for F17
On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 13:08:24 -0500 Dan Williams d...@redhat.com wrote: Comcast require DHCPv6 (otherwise they can't delegate /64 automatically). Do they send RAs at all? If so, which (if either) of the other and managed flags are set? If they don't, do they just expect DHCPv6 to be magically run, and what gets used for the default gateway address given that DHCPv6 has no such option? I'd love to know... I promise to let you know once I can run rdisc6 eth0.2. -- Pete -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Adjustment to deprecated package policy approved by FESCo
On the FESCo meeting today the deprecated package policy was adjusted. We agreed on the following proposal: Packages may be unretired without review up to 2 weeks after retirement providing that the package has ever previously been reviewed. -- Tomas Mraz No matter how far down the wrong road you've gone, turn back. Turkish proverb -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
License change: perl-IPTables-{Parse,ChainMgr} are now Artistic 2.0
... from (GPL+ or Artistic). All Fedora users of these packages are GPLv2 or GPLv2+. Mirek -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Non-free tarball checked in
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 18:53:16 +0100, drago01 drag...@gmail.com wrote: IANAL but I would call the odt source code and the pdf binary but just use the term documentation for either. It is not a binary in the sense of compiled code. The GPL requires you to to provide the preferred source code for doing updates. So for PDFs generated from some other source (as opposed directly with a pdf editor) one is arguably required to provide that other source when distrubuting GPL licensed PDFs. (IMO the GPL doesn't really make a good documentation or artwork license.) -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
[389-devel] please review ticket 285 - compilation fixes for '--format-security'
https://fedorahosted.org/389/ticket/285 https://fedorahosted.org/389/attachment/ticket/285/0001-TIcket-285-compilation-fixes-for-format-security.patch -- 389-devel mailing list 389-de...@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/389-devel
Re: Emesene package mantainer
Il 10/03/2012 20:29, Itamar Reis Peixoto ha scritto: On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 1:42 PM, Caterpillar caterpilla...@gmail.com wrote: I opened a bugreport about the nonresponsive package mantainer of emesene. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=797260 This is the third point of procedure https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_nonresponsive_package_maintainers Does anybody know how to contact him? -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel have you tried updates-testing ? http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/packageinfo?packageID=5730 No, what about stable updates? -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: why are is subversion 1.7 for F16/F17 removed
Am 12.03.2012 20:33, schrieb Jon Ciesla: He expected that it /would/ be pushed to stable. Well, yes. And I can understand that. But as you said, that's no guarantee it'll ever hit stable. but what should i do now a half year later i need subversion = 1.7.0, this was installed until today i upgraded to F16 and worked well currently there is not working = 1.7.x package for F16 available anywhere I'm not sure. Install the build deps needed to rebuild the f17 SRPMs? they are NOT solveable for the available src.rpms on F16 that is why it makes me so crazy that once built and working packages are removed in the meantime don't do the testing on productive systems. Do the testing in a separate system (or in a VM) i DO testing in many virtual machines and tests was succesful how should i imagine that a F15 testing-version will it make even not in F16 while other packages are RELEASED as RC and even not updated after upstream-final (dbmail) signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
[PARTLY SOLVED] Re: why are is subversion 1.7 for F16/F17 removed
Am 12.03.2012 20:43, schrieb drago01: On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 6:02 PM, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net wrote: the F17 src.rpm can not be rebuilded with rpmbuild --rebuild on F16 because BuildRequirements - so i am f**ed up because tessted and expected after all is running fine this was pushed to stable updates long ago Well that does not help you now but to avoid hitting this situation again ... don't do the testing on productive systems. Do the testing in a separate system (or in a VM) i usually test in vritual machines, but after tests was successful and i had a prepared transission to subversion 1.7 for my working data i did the update also on my desktop station however: i partly solved the problem for now the 1.7.1-1-fc17 package can be rebuilt by disabling autotests on F16 including subversion-kde and also rebuilt svn2cl makes me not much happy that newer ones can not be rebuilt by hitting cross-deps with newer ruby/ruby-devel versions but it makes my situation much more relaxed subversion-1.7.1-1.fc16.20120312.rh.x86_64 subversion-kde-1.7.1-1.fc16.20120312.rh.x86_64 subversion-libs-1.7.1-1.fc16.20120312.rh.x86_64 signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: why are is subversion 1.7 for F16/F17 removed
On 3/12/12 12:59 PM, Reindl Harald wrote: I'm not sure. Install the build deps needed to rebuild the f17 SRPMs? they are NOT solveable for the available src.rpms on F16 that is why it makes me so crazy that once built and working packages are removed in the meantime don't do the testing on productive systems. Do the testing in a separate system (or in a VM) i DO testing in many virtual machines and tests was succesful how should i imagine that a F15 testing-version will it make even not in F16 while other packages are RELEASED as RC and even not updated after upstream-final (dbmail) Every package is different. While the subversion update required hand management to bring up to date, the dbmail may not have (note I do not know if this is true or not). You can't judge one package by another, upstream version numbers are practically meaningless, particularly when trying to compare behavior between two packages. -- Help me fight child abuse: http://tinyurl.com/jlkcourage - jlk -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: [PARTLY SOLVED] Re: why are is subversion 1.7 for F16/F17 removed
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 10:34 PM, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net wrote: Am 12.03.2012 20:43, schrieb drago01: On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 6:02 PM, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net wrote: the F17 src.rpm can not be rebuilded with rpmbuild --rebuild on F16 because BuildRequirements - so i am f**ed up because tessted and expected after all is running fine this was pushed to stable updates long ago Well that does not help you now but to avoid hitting this situation again ... don't do the testing on productive systems. Do the testing in a separate system (or in a VM) i usually test in vritual machines, but after tests was successful and i had a prepared transission to subversion 1.7 for my working data i did the update also on my desktop station Well usually you should test in the VM (or another safe environment), give karma in bodhi and wait for the update to hit stable before deploying it. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: why are is subversion 1.7 for F16/F17 removed
Am 12.03.2012 22:49, schrieb Jesse Keating: Every package is different. While the subversion update required hand management to bring up to date, the dbmail may not have (note I do not know if this is true or not) what i meant here is why the maintainer does not update to stable release for so long time? https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=797118 even 3.0 final was badly broken in many ways and needed nearly a month debugging with the upstream-developer and now while 3.0.2 is really fine fedora users not building their own packages does not get a update while the would not have these many troubles by not inclduding a RC in GA release signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
User switching is broken
User switching between different users on X is broken. It's not just broken for me, everyone I have asked has experienced the same problem: Clicking Switch user will often or sometimes lead to a hung screen. The switcher doesn't show the correct virtual terminal. Killing the switcher with ctrl+alt+backspace is one solution, the alternative is manually switching virtual consoles. Reporting this on Bugzilla doesn't help. Mentioning it here hasn't helped. The bug does exist, but everyone knows how to workaround it. Everyone who doesn't know how to workaround it doesn't use Bugzilla? Abrtd isn't catching this because it isn't a crash? What does the list recommend? -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: User switching is broken
On Mon, 2012-03-12 at 23:04 +0100, nodata wrote: User switching between different users on X is broken. It's not just broken for me, everyone I have asked has experienced the same problem: Clicking Switch user will often or sometimes lead to a hung screen. The switcher doesn't show the correct virtual terminal. Killing the switcher with ctrl+alt+backspace is one solution, the alternative is manually switching virtual consoles. Reporting this on Bugzilla doesn't help. What do you mean by 'doesn't help', exactly? -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora http://www.happyassassin.net -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: User switching is broken
On Mon, 12.03.12 23:04, nodata (l...@nodata.co.uk) wrote: User switching between different users on X is broken. It's not just broken for me, everyone I have asked has experienced the same problem: Clicking Switch user will often or sometimes lead to a hung screen. The switcher doesn't show the correct virtual terminal. Killing the switcher with ctrl+alt+backspace is one solution, the alternative is manually switching virtual consoles. Reporting this on Bugzilla doesn't help. Mentioning it here hasn't helped. It's probably broked due to the CK removal work, and hence I am responsible for breaking this. I presume you are speaking of gnome-shell? it's the first time I hear of this, what's the bugzilla id? Lennart -- Lennart Poettering - Red Hat, Inc. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: User switching is broken
On Mon, 2012-03-12 at 23:04 +0100, nodata wrote: User switching between different users on X is broken. It's not just broken for me, everyone I have asked has experienced the same problem: Clicking Switch user will often or sometimes lead to a hung screen. The switcher doesn't show the correct virtual terminal. Killing the switcher with ctrl+alt+backspace is one solution, the alternative is manually switching virtual consoles. I don't had any problem, but also don't switch much. what Fedora Release ? what X11 loads ? (cat /var/log/Xorg.0.log| grep drivers) what it is yours graphic card ? what is your windows manager ? you use kdm or gdm or other ? Regards, -- Sérgio M. B. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Notice: IPv6 breaking issues tentatively considered blocker for F17
* Thomas Woerner For now DHCPv6-client support is enabled in 'work' and 'home', but not in the default zone 'public'. Should we enable dhcpv6-client in the default zone and maybe others also? Hi Thomas, In my humble opinion... Considering that the DHCPv6 protocol is almost an exact IPv6 replica of DHCPv4, that it used for doing pretty much exactly the same in IPv6 as DHCPv4 does in IPv4, and that the DHCPv4 and the DHCPv6 clients are contained in one single binary executable, the only thing I find reasonable is to allow DHCPv6 traffic whenever DHCPv4 traffic is allowed (and vice versa). To the best of my knowledge, currently, DHCPv4 client traffic is always allowed in Fedora. (And I'm sure that changing that would cause an outrage.) Which in turn means that the answer to your question is a resounding YES. Best regards, -- Tore Anderson -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Notice: IPv6 breaking issues tentatively considered blocker for F17
* Dan Williams On Mon, 2012-03-12 at 09:59 -0600, Pete Zaitcev wrote: This may be the case for the network that you or I run, but not for providers. Comcast require DHCPv6 (otherwise they can't delegate /64 automatically). Do they send RAs at all? If so, which (if either) of the other and managed flags are set? If they don't, do they just expect DHCPv6 to be magically run, and what gets used for the default gateway address given that DHCPv6 has no such option? I'd love to know... Hi Dan, Assuming Comcast use plain Ethernet, I am certain they will send RAs with M=1. That said, you *are* allowed to kick off DHCPv6 before receiving an RA in order to speed up the activation process. However, if you do, you need to always request an IA_NA address (in other words behave as if you're expecting an RA with M=1). Microsoft Windows does this. Without an RA, however, you won't get on the internet, as RAs are the only way to discover the default router(s). So waiting for an RA before starting DHCPv6 (like currently NM does) is perfectly reasonable too, perhaps even more so at this point in time, where most networks have neither RAs or DHCPv6 service. Best regards, -- Tore Anderson -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: [Test-Announce] Test Day 2012-03-15: GNOME Shell and Extensions
On Mon, 2012-03-12 at 11:07 -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote: I know this should most likely be directed at upstream Gnome, but would it be possible to redesign extensions.gnome.org so that it's... usable? I mean, it's a list of extensions, ten to a page, ordered by popularity, name or number of downloads. Would it be so hard to add tags or categories of functionality? Right now, I have to read through fourteen pages (and growing!) to get any idea of whether an extension happens to provide a feature I might want. I like gnome-shell, and I'd like to tweak it a little bit to fit my needs better. But the extension website is so difficult to navigate that it's really a deterrent. It will only get worse as people continue to write new extensions (which, because of the default ordering of popularity will always show up in the later pages of the site first). Thanks for the feedback. We have recently added search to the website, and some other improvements may still land before we remove the 'alpha' label from it. If you want to report your problem in more detail, feel free to go to https://bugzilla.gnome.org/enter_bug.cgi?product=websitecomponent=extensions.gnome.org - or just walk by Jaspers desk. Matthias -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Emesene package mantainer
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 6:24 PM, Caterpillar caterpilla...@gmail.com wrote: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/packageinfo?packageID=5730 No, what about stable updates? look at https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates its pushed into updates-testing if you add some karma it will become stable. -- Itamar Reis Peixoto msn, google talk: ita...@ispbrasil.com.br +55 11 4063 5033 (FIXO SP) +55 34 9158 9329 (TIM) +55 34 8806 3989 (OI) +55 34 3221 8599 (FIXO MG) -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: User switching is broken
2012/3/12 Sérgio Basto ser...@serjux.com On Mon, 2012-03-12 at 23:04 +0100, nodata wrote: User switching between different users on X is broken. It's not just broken for me, everyone I have asked has experienced the same problem: Clicking Switch user will often or sometimes lead to a hung screen. The switcher doesn't show the correct virtual terminal. Killing the switcher with ctrl+alt+backspace is one solution, the alternative is manually switching virtual consoles. I don't had any problem, but also don't switch much. what Fedora Release ? what X11 loads ? (cat /var/log/Xorg.0.log| grep drivers) what it is yours graphic card ? what is your windows manager ? you use kdm or gdm or other ? I had the exact same experience. my wife and I switch a lot. I changed from nouveau to nvidia and my problem _mostly_ went away. Its only happened to me once since, so I assumed that was the problem/fix. Unfortunately, I've trained the wife on the ctrl+alt+bksp so now I don't know how often she has the issue. Release: I had the issue on f16 (I skipped 15, so can not speak to that) Drivers pre-nvidia: [499406.597] (II) Loading /usr/lib64/xorg/modules/drivers/nouveau_drv.so [499406.598] (II) Loading /usr/lib64/xorg/modules/drivers/vesa_drv.so [499406.598] (II) Loading /usr/lib64/xorg/modules/drivers/fbdev_drv.so [499406.648] (II) Loading /usr/lib64/xorg/modules/drivers/nouveau_drv.so Drivers post-nvidia: [ 216.734] (WW) Hotplugging is on, devices using drivers 'kbd', 'mouse' or 'vmmouse' will be disabled. [ 218.200] (II) Loading /usr/lib64/xorg/modules/drivers/nvidia_drv.so [ 218.300] (II) Loading /usr/lib64/xorg/modules/drivers/nvidia_drv.so Video card: 01:00.0 VGA compatible controller: nVidia Corporation GT218 [GeForce G210] (rev a2) wm: gnome-shell gdm the bug I found was: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=739361 but i don't know if that is the one OP was referring to. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
File Test-LeakTrace-0.14.tar.gz uploaded to lookaside cache by pghmcfc
A file has been added to the lookaside cache for perl-Test-LeakTrace: d53953f442cf782c30f843df677db210 Test-LeakTrace-0.14.tar.gz -- Fedora Extras Perl SIG http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl perl-devel mailing list perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/perl-devel
[perl-Test-LeakTrace] Update to 0.14 and clean up package
commit 9597a0be45222d9efacb8fbc83d4c5c3a2886e17
Author: Paul Howarth p...@city-fan.org
Date: Mon Mar 12 10:57:39 2012 +
Update to 0.14 and clean up package
- New upstream release 0.14
- Fix Test::Valgrind failures
- Drop tests subpackage; move tests to main package documentation as long as
we have %{perl_default_filter} to avoid the resulting doc-file
dependencies
- Run the release tests too, except for xt/05_valgrind.t since we don't have
Test::Valgrind yet
- BR: perl(Test::Pod), perl(Test::Pod::Coverage), perl(Test::Spelling),
aspell-en/hunspell-en and perl(Test::Synopsis) for the release tests
- Drop version requirement of perl(ExtUtils::MakeMaker) to 6.30, which works
fine in EPEL-5
- Tidy %description
- Make %files list more explicit
- Package benchmark/ and example/ as documentation
- Drop explicit versioned requires of perl(Exporter) ≥ 5.57, satisfied by
all
supported distributions
- Don't need to remove empty directories from buildroot
- Don't use macros for commands
- Drop %defattr, redundant since rpm 4.4
- Use tabs
.gitignore |2 +-
perl-Test-LeakTrace.spec | 138 +++---
sources |2 +-
3 files changed, 95 insertions(+), 47 deletions(-)
---
diff --git a/.gitignore b/.gitignore
index db02c11..96b0c7c 100644
--- a/.gitignore
+++ b/.gitignore
@@ -1 +1 @@
-/Test-LeakTrace-0.13.tar.gz
+/Test-LeakTrace-[0-9.]*.tar.gz
diff --git a/perl-Test-LeakTrace.spec b/perl-Test-LeakTrace.spec
index 0267bf7..263d000 100644
--- a/perl-Test-LeakTrace.spec
+++ b/perl-Test-LeakTrace.spec
@@ -1,67 +1,115 @@
-Name: perl-Test-LeakTrace
-Summary:Traces memory leaks
-Version:0.13
-Release:4%{?dist}
-License:GPL+ or Artistic
-Group: Development/Libraries
-Source0:
http://search.cpan.org/CPAN/authors/id/G/GF/GFUJI/Test-LeakTrace-%{version}.tar.gz
-URL:http://search.cpan.org/dist/Test-LeakTrace
-BuildRoot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
-Requires: perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_%(eval `%{__perl} -V:version`; echo
$version))
-
-BuildRequires: perl(Exporter) = 5.57
-BuildRequires: perl(ExtUtils::MakeMaker) = 6.42
-BuildRequires: perl(Test::More) = 0.62
-
-Requires: perl(Exporter) = 5.57
-
+# Pick up the right dictionary for the spell check
+%if %(perl -e 'print $] = 5.01 ? 1 : 0;')
+%global speller hunspell
+%else
+%global speller aspell
+%endif
+
+#TODO: BR: perl(Test::Valgrind) when available
+
+Name: perl-Test-LeakTrace
+Summary: Trace memory leaks
+Version: 0.14
+Release: 1%{?dist}
+License: GPL+ or Artistic
+Group: Development/Libraries
+URL: http://search.cpan.org/dist/Test-LeakTrace/
+Source0:
http://search.cpan.org/CPAN/authors/id/G/GF/GFUJI/Test-LeakTrace-%{version}.tar.gz
+BuildRoot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(id -nu)
+BuildRequires: perl(Exporter) = 5.57
+BuildRequires: perl(ExtUtils::MakeMaker) = 6.30
+BuildRequires: perl(Test::More) = 0.62
+BuildRequires: perl(Test::Pod) = 1.14
+BuildRequires: perl(Test::Pod::Coverage) = 1.04
+BuildRequires: perl(Test::Spelling), %{speller}-en
+BuildRequires: perl(Test::Synopsis)
+Requires: perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_%(eval `perl -V:version`; echo $version))
+
+# Obsolete/Provide old tests subpackage
+# Can be removed during F19 development cycle
+%if 0%{?perl_default_filter:1}
+Obsoletes: %{name}-tests 0.14
+Provides: %{name}-tests = %{version}-%{release}
+%endif
+
+# Don't provide private perl libs
%{?perl_default_filter}
-%{?perl_default_subpackage_tests}
%description
-'Test::LeakTrace' provides several functions that trace memory leaks.
-This module scans arenas, the memory allocation system, so it can detect
-any leaked SVs in given blocks. *Leaked SVs* are SVs which are not
-released after the end of the scope they have been created. These SVs
-include global variables and internal caches. For example, if you call a
-method in a tracing block, perl might prepare a cache for the method.
-Thus, to trace true leaks, 'no_leaks_ok()' and 'leaks_cmp_ok()' executes
-a block more than once.
+Test::LeakTrace provides several functions that trace memory leaks. This module
+scans arenas, the memory allocation system, so it can detect any leaked SVs in
+given blocks.
+
+Leaked SVs are SVs that are not released after the end of the scope they have
+been created. These SVs include global variables and internal caches. For
+example, if you call a method in a tracing block, perl might prepare a cache
+for the method. Thus, to trace true leaks, no_leaks_ok() and leaks_cmp_ok()
+executes a block more than once.
%prep
%setup -q -n Test-LeakTrace-%{version}
-find . -type f -exec chmod -c -x {} +
+# Remove redundant exec bits
+chmod -c -x lib/Test/LeakTrace/Script.pm t/lib/foo.pl
+
+# Fix up
[perl-Test-LeakTrace/f17] Update to 0.14 and clean up package
Summary of changes: 9597a0b... Update to 0.14 and clean up package (*) (*) This commit already existed in another branch; no separate mail sent -- Fedora Extras Perl SIG http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl perl-devel mailing list perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/perl-devel
[perl-Test-LeakTrace] Created tag perl-Test-LeakTrace-0.14-1.fc18
The lightweight tag 'perl-Test-LeakTrace-0.14-1.fc18' was created pointing to: 9597a0b... Update to 0.14 and clean up package -- Fedora Extras Perl SIG http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl perl-devel mailing list perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/perl-devel
[perl-Test-LeakTrace] Created tag perl-Test-LeakTrace-0.14-1.fc17
The lightweight tag 'perl-Test-LeakTrace-0.14-1.fc17' was created pointing to: 9597a0b... Update to 0.14 and clean up package -- Fedora Extras Perl SIG http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl perl-devel mailing list perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/perl-devel
File B-Utils-0.19.tar.gz uploaded to lookaside cache by iarnell
A file has been added to the lookaside cache for perl-B-Utils: b231d09deb80b0633b14317dc8e36aa2 B-Utils-0.19.tar.gz -- Fedora Extras Perl SIG http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl perl-devel mailing list perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/perl-devel
[perl-B-Utils] update to 0.19
commit 0e9b6ecb4385cb743e5b6ca364a8208f43ac731a
Author: Iain Arnell iarn...@gmail.com
Date: Mon Mar 12 05:40:59 2012 -0600
update to 0.19
.gitignore|1 +
perl-B-Utils.spec |6 +-
sources |2 +-
3 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
---
diff --git a/.gitignore b/.gitignore
index b70e582..84359eb 100644
--- a/.gitignore
+++ b/.gitignore
@@ -3,3 +3,4 @@ B-Utils-0.11.tar.gz
/B-Utils-0.14.tar.gz
/B-Utils-0.15.tar.gz
/B-Utils-0.17.tar.gz
+/B-Utils-0.19.tar.gz
diff --git a/perl-B-Utils.spec b/perl-B-Utils.spec
index 7f28a94..e7cb847 100644
--- a/perl-B-Utils.spec
+++ b/perl-B-Utils.spec
@@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
Name: perl-B-Utils
-Version:0.17
+Version:0.19
Release:1%{?dist}
Summary:Helper functions for op tree manipulation
License:GPL+ or Artistic
@@ -18,6 +18,7 @@ BuildRequires: perl(List::Util)
BuildRequires: perl(Scalar::Util)
BuildRequires: perl(strict)
BuildRequires: perl(subs)
+BuildRequires: perl(Test::Exception)
BuildRequires: perl(Test::More)
BuildRequires: perl(Test::Pod)
BuildRequires: perl(vars)
@@ -56,6 +57,9 @@ make test
%{_mandir}/man3/*
%changelog
+* Mon Mar 12 2012 Iain Arnell iarn...@gmail.com 0.19-1
+- update to latest upstream version
+
* Thu Jan 05 2012 Iain Arnell iarn...@gmail.com 0.17-1
- update to latest upstream version
diff --git a/sources b/sources
index c40ea09..de8d223 100644
--- a/sources
+++ b/sources
@@ -1 +1 @@
-6dba6b4eb19143d94da6d0894602ce30 B-Utils-0.17.tar.gz
+b231d09deb80b0633b14317dc8e36aa2 B-Utils-0.19.tar.gz
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
perl-devel mailing list
perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/perl-devel
[perl-B-Utils/f17] update to 0.19
Summary of changes: 0e9b6ec... update to 0.19 (*) (*) This commit already existed in another branch; no separate mail sent -- Fedora Extras Perl SIG http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl perl-devel mailing list perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/perl-devel
[perl-B-Utils/f16] (2 commits) ...update to 0.19
Summary of changes: 0cdcd8c... update to 0.17 (*) 0e9b6ec... update to 0.19 (*) (*) This commit already existed in another branch; no separate mail sent -- Fedora Extras Perl SIG http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl perl-devel mailing list perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/perl-devel
[perl-B-Utils/f15] (5 commits) ...update to 0.19
Summary of changes: 3b4e9bc... update to 0.14 (*) 47d8ca0... update to 0.15 (*) 963194a... Perl mass rebuild (*) 0cdcd8c... update to 0.17 (*) 0e9b6ec... update to 0.19 (*) (*) This commit already existed in another branch; no separate mail sent -- Fedora Extras Perl SIG http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl perl-devel mailing list perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/perl-devel
File File-Path-Tiny-0.2.tar.gz uploaded to lookaside cache by iarnell
A file has been added to the lookaside cache for perl-File-Path-Tiny: 2c4c23a5c673c94d86cdb82fd4069f7e File-Path-Tiny-0.2.tar.gz -- Fedora Extras Perl SIG http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl perl-devel mailing list perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/perl-devel
File File-ChangeNotify-0.21.tar.gz uploaded to lookaside cache by cheeselee
A file has been added to the lookaside cache for perl-File-ChangeNotify: bd8f8f32faed6aba5353b8f270898935 File-ChangeNotify-0.21.tar.gz -- Fedora Extras Perl SIG http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl perl-devel mailing list perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/perl-devel
[perl-File-ChangeNotify] Update to 0.21
commit 03c27513e9f2e0648521e2f303ee16e3a06ef352
Author: Robin Lee cheese...@fedoraproject.org
Date: Mon Mar 12 19:54:22 2012 +0800
Update to 0.21
.gitignore |1 +
perl-File-ChangeNotify.spec |5 -
sources |2 +-
3 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
---
diff --git a/.gitignore b/.gitignore
index 2b1de55..b4b25e6 100644
--- a/.gitignore
+++ b/.gitignore
@@ -1,3 +1,4 @@
File-ChangeNotify-0.13.tar.gz
/File-ChangeNotify-0.16.tar.gz
/File-ChangeNotify-0.20.tar.gz
+/File-ChangeNotify-0.21.tar.gz
diff --git a/perl-File-ChangeNotify.spec b/perl-File-ChangeNotify.spec
index 3ff8614..64a3ed7 100644
--- a/perl-File-ChangeNotify.spec
+++ b/perl-File-ChangeNotify.spec
@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
Name: perl-File-ChangeNotify
Summary:Watch for changes to files, cross-platform style
-Version:0.20
+Version:0.21
Release:1%{?dist}
License:Artistic 2.0
Group: Development/Libraries
@@ -80,6 +80,9 @@ rm -rf %{buildroot}
%{_mandir}/man3/*.3*
%changelog
+* Mon Mar 12 2012 Robin Lee cheese...@fedoraproject.org - 0.21-1
+- Update to 0.21
+
* Fri Jan 13 2012 Robin Lee cheese...@fedoraproject.org - 0.20-1
- Update to 0.20
- Changed to Build.PL style
diff --git a/sources b/sources
index 623ab47..da247b9 100644
--- a/sources
+++ b/sources
@@ -1 +1 @@
-9bb68f6e149436ace7cb13c8f9cdb6bd File-ChangeNotify-0.20.tar.gz
+bd8f8f32faed6aba5353b8f270898935 File-ChangeNotify-0.21.tar.gz
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
perl-devel mailing list
perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/perl-devel
[perl-Test-LeakTrace] Created tag perl-Test-LeakTrace-0.14-1.el5
The lightweight tag 'perl-Test-LeakTrace-0.14-1.el5' was created pointing to: 9597a0b... Update to 0.14 and clean up package -- Fedora Extras Perl SIG http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl perl-devel mailing list perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/perl-devel
File Hash-MultiValue-0.12.tar.gz uploaded to lookaside cache by cheeselee
A file has been added to the lookaside cache for perl-Hash-MultiValue: a8016cd3e90b21e759703e248ae83c26 Hash-MultiValue-0.12.tar.gz -- Fedora Extras Perl SIG http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl perl-devel mailing list perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/perl-devel
[perl-Hash-MultiValue] Update to 0.12
commit 8e4a3fca858e45a5e37b4bc916f3ab200e5ccafe
Author: Robin Lee cheese...@fedoraproject.org
Date: Mon Mar 12 20:50:36 2012 +0800
Update to 0.12
.gitignore|1 +
perl-Hash-MultiValue.spec |5 -
sources |2 +-
3 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
---
diff --git a/.gitignore b/.gitignore
index c0b4076..aa9ffaa 100644
--- a/.gitignore
+++ b/.gitignore
@@ -1,2 +1,3 @@
Hash-MultiValue-0.08.tar.gz
/Hash-MultiValue-0.10.tar.gz
+/Hash-MultiValue-0.12.tar.gz
diff --git a/perl-Hash-MultiValue.spec b/perl-Hash-MultiValue.spec
index 68db913..ed57b4c 100644
--- a/perl-Hash-MultiValue.spec
+++ b/perl-Hash-MultiValue.spec
@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
Name: perl-Hash-MultiValue
Summary:Store multiple values per key
-Version:0.10
+Version:0.12
Release:1%{?dist}
License:GPL+ or Artistic
Group: Development/Libraries
@@ -53,6 +53,9 @@ rm -rf %{buildroot}
%{_mandir}/man3/*.3*
%changelog
+* Mon Mar 12 2012 Robin Lee cheese...@fedoraproject.org - 0.12-1
+- Update to 0.12
+
* Fri Jan 13 2012 Robin Lee cheese...@fedoraproject.org - 0.10-1
- Update to 0.10
- BR: add perl(UNIVERSAL::ref)
diff --git a/sources b/sources
index 19b9a58..747c903 100644
--- a/sources
+++ b/sources
@@ -1 +1 @@
-386b9ed884f3af6c20dca6d5fbefbb91 Hash-MultiValue-0.10.tar.gz
+a8016cd3e90b21e759703e248ae83c26 Hash-MultiValue-0.12.tar.gz
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
perl-devel mailing list
perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/perl-devel
[perl-Hash-MultiValue/f17] Update to 0.12
Summary of changes: 8e4a3fc... Update to 0.12 (*) (*) This commit already existed in another branch; no separate mail sent -- Fedora Extras Perl SIG http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl perl-devel mailing list perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/perl-devel
File Sub-Install-0.926.tar.gz uploaded to lookaside cache by cheeselee
A file has been added to the lookaside cache for perl-Sub-Install: 89a7f82dd840bc2401f281b5f24732b9 Sub-Install-0.926.tar.gz -- Fedora Extras Perl SIG http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl perl-devel mailing list perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/perl-devel
[perl-Sub-Install] Update to 0.926
commit c4c274c8697ff61c6eff3e6f9202471e6a763730
Author: Robin Lee cheese...@fedoraproject.org
Date: Mon Mar 12 21:10:09 2012 +0800
Update to 0.926
.gitignore|1 +
perl-Sub-Install.spec |9 ++---
sources |2 +-
3 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
---
diff --git a/.gitignore b/.gitignore
index df5f9a0..c2ebbaf 100644
--- a/.gitignore
+++ b/.gitignore
@@ -1 +1,2 @@
Sub-Install-0.925.tar.gz
+/Sub-Install-0.926.tar.gz
diff --git a/perl-Sub-Install.spec b/perl-Sub-Install.spec
index 94aae0d..37fc0f2 100644
--- a/perl-Sub-Install.spec
+++ b/perl-Sub-Install.spec
@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
Name: perl-Sub-Install
-Version:0.925
-Release:10%{?dist}
+Version:0.926
+Release:1%{?dist}
Summary:Install subroutines into packages easily
License:GPL+ or Artistic
Group: Development/Libraries
@@ -43,7 +43,7 @@ find %{buildroot} -depth -type d -exec rmdir {} 2/dev/null \;
# present. However, Test::Output requires Sub::Exporter which requires...
# Sub::Install. Holy circular loop, Batman! :)
%if !%{defined perl_bootstrap}
-make test
+PERL_TEST_CRITIC=1 make test
%endif
%clean
@@ -56,6 +56,9 @@ rm -rf %{buildroot}
%{_mandir}/man3/*
%changelog
+* Mon Mar 12 2012 Robin Lee cheese...@fedoraproject.org - 0.926-1
+- Update to 0.926
+
* Fri Jan 13 2012 Fedora Release Engineering rel-...@lists.fedoraproject.org
- 0.925-10
- Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_17_Mass_Rebuild
diff --git a/sources b/sources
index 94fcdb6..557639e 100644
--- a/sources
+++ b/sources
@@ -1 +1 @@
-694aaec771c42280746a9a6279683263 Sub-Install-0.925.tar.gz
+89a7f82dd840bc2401f281b5f24732b9 Sub-Install-0.926.tar.gz
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
perl-devel mailing list
perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/perl-devel
[perl-Sub-Install/f17] Update to 0.926
Summary of changes: c4c274c... Update to 0.926 (*) (*) This commit already existed in another branch; no separate mail sent -- Fedora Extras Perl SIG http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl perl-devel mailing list perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/perl-devel
[Bug 797866] perl-Sub-Install-0.926 is available
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=797866 Robin Lee robinlee.s...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE Fixed In Version||perl-Sub-Install-0.926-1.fc ||17 Last Closed||2012-03-12 09:25:32 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. -- Fedora Extras Perl SIG http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl perl-devel mailing list perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/perl-devel
[Bug 789975] perl-Hash-MultiValue-0.12 is available
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=789975 Robin Lee robinlee.s...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE Fixed In Version||perl-Hash-MultiValue-0.12-1 ||.fc17 Last Closed||2012-03-12 09:23:46 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. -- Fedora Extras Perl SIG http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl perl-devel mailing list perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/perl-devel
[Bug 787638] perl-File-ChangeNotify-0.21 is available
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=787638 Robin Lee robinlee.s...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE Fixed In Version||perl-File-ChangeNotify-0.21 ||-1.fc17 Last Closed||2012-03-12 09:24:37 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. -- Fedora Extras Perl SIG http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl perl-devel mailing list perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/perl-devel
File IPTables-Parse-1.1.tar.bz2 uploaded to lookaside cache by mitr
A file has been added to the lookaside cache for perl-IPTables-Parse: 195aafe496fd8c350bc68175110e46a7 IPTables-Parse-1.1.tar.bz2 -- Fedora Extras Perl SIG http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl perl-devel mailing list perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/perl-devel
