Re: Orphaned Packages in rawhide (2015-10-07)

On 10/08/2015 07:42 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > On 10/08/2015 07:11 AM, Tomasz Torcz wrote: >> On Wed, Oct 07, 2015 at 09:56:53PM +, opensou...@till.name wrote: >>> Note: If you received this mail directly you (co)maintain one of the >>> affected >>> packages or a package that depends on one.

Re: Orphaned packages seeking new point of contact

I will take Ktechlab On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 1:27 PM, Marcin Juszkiewicz wrote: > W dniu 08.10.2015 o 01:29, Eduardo Mayorga Téllez pisze: > >> El 07/10/2015 2:05 pm, Kevin Fenzi escribió: >> >>> xcircuit -- Electronic circuit schematic drawing program ( master f23 >>>

Howto remove project from release-monitoring.org (Anitya) ?

I can't find a way how to remove https://release-monitoring.org/project/5554/ What am I missing ? thanks -- Jiri -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: Howto remove project from release-monitoring.org (Anitya) ?

On Thu, Oct 08, 2015 at 10:15:07AM +0200, Jiri Popelka wrote: > I can't find a way how to remove > https://release-monitoring.org/project/5554/ > > What am I missing ? Regular users cannot, but you can flag the project asking an admin to delete a version found or the entire project :) Pierre --

Re: Howto remove project from release-monitoring.org (Anitya) ?

Dne 8.10.2015 v 10:15 Jiri Popelka napsal(a): > I can't find a way how to remove > https://release-monitoring.org/project/5554/ > > What am I missing ? > > thanks > > -- > Jiri There is orange "Flag" button you should use for this purpose. Vít -- devel mailing list

Re: Summary/Minutes from today's FESCo Meeting (2015-10-07)

On Čt, 2015-10-08 at 00:06 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote: > Stephen Gallagher wrote: > > * #1483 Decision on bundling policy in the Fedora Package Collection > > (sgallagh, 18:11:40) > > * LINK: http://paste.fedoraproject.org/276064/44243383/ is sgallaghs > > proposal without the critpath

Re: Orphaned packages seeking new point of contact

perl-Hardware-Verilog-Parser -- Complete grammar for parsing Verilog code using perl ( master f23 f22 f21 el6 el5 ) perl-Hardware-Vhdl-Lexer -- Split VHDL code into lexical tokens ( master f23 f22 f21 el6 el5 ) perl-Hardware-Vhdl-Parser -- Complete grammar for parsing VHDL code using perl (

orphaning radiusclient-ng

Hello, I'll orphan radiusclient-ng with the purpose of dropping it from the next releases of Fedora. This is an old unmaintained library replaced by any of the following packages (the latter has an API compatible subpackage). * https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/freeradius-client/ *

Re: Orphaned packages seeking new point of contact

W dniu 08.10.2015 o 01:29, Eduardo Mayorga Téllez pisze: El 07/10/2015 2:05 pm, Kevin Fenzi escribió: xcircuit -- Electronic circuit schematic drawing program ( master f23 f22 f21 el6 el5 ) Taken. Can you also take ngspice? Otherwise one of xcircuit build dependencies will be removed from

Re: Proposal to reduce anti-bundling requirements

On Thu, Oct 08, 2015 at 12:41:36AM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote: > The current situation with packages stuck in the review queue forever, > exception requests to FPC skyrocketing, etc. is the result of rampant > packager laziness. So, what's your proposed solution here? How do would we make

rawhide report: 20151008 changes

Compose started at Thu Oct 8 05:15:02 UTC 2015 Broken deps for i386 -- [CableSwig] CableSwig-3.20.0-13.fc23.i686 requires gccxml [IQmol] IQmol-2.3.0-9.fc24.i686 requires libboost_serialization.so.1.58.0

F-23 Branched report: 20151008 changes

Compose started at Thu Oct 8 07:15:03 UTC 2015 Broken deps for armhfp -- [CableSwig] CableSwig-3.20.0-13.fc23.armv7hl requires gccxml [apache-scout] apache-scout-1.2.6-11.fc21.noarch requires mvn(org.apache.juddi:uddi-ws)

Eclipse fedorapackager plugin and it's future

Hi everyone, Fedorapackager eclipse plugin has been neglected for quite some time and updates are broken after the Bodhi2 update. So are there any users left? Is anyone interested in maintaining it? Enhancing it? Any feedback is more than welcome as it might be time to let it rest in peace if

Re: Orphaned packages seeking new point of contact

On 10/07/2015 10:05 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > Per this fesco ticket: > > https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1484#comment:3 > > I have orphaned all of the packages that had chitlesh as a point of > contact: > > liborigin -- Library for reading OriginLab OPJ project files ( master f23 f22 >

Re: Proposal to reduce anti-bundling requirements

* Kevin Kofler [08/10/2015 02:33] : > > The thing is, it should NOT matter at all how upstream feels. If we treat > unbundling as something to do with upstream, we already failed. Unbundling > must be done whether upstream likes it or not, even in upstream's spite! And At this point, you're

Re: Proposal: retire lesstif in f24 and beyond

W dniu 08.10.2015 o 12:06, Marcin Juszkiewicz pisze: W dniu 02.10.2015 o 13:33, Jon Ciesla pisze: Lesstif being basically dead upstream and motif being available, I think it's probably time to retire lesstif. If anyone knows of other packages using it, please let me know and I can migrate

Re: Proposal: retire lesstif in f24 and beyond

W dniu 02.10.2015 o 13:33, Jon Ciesla pisze: Lesstif being basically dead upstream and motif being available, I think it's probably time to retire lesstif. If anyone knows of other packages using it, please let me know and I can migrate them. dinotrace fbb xastir xmbdfed xvarstar Those are

Re: Proposal to reduce anti-bundling requirements

On 10/08/2015 12:31 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote: Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote: >Badges was supposed to be that carrot for the mule's so perhaps there's >just missing new set of badges for this... > >1.https://badges.fedoraproject.org/ Those "badges" are completely useless as a reward As real as

Re: Proposal to reduce anti-bundling requirements

On Thu, Oct 08, 2015 at 02:33:34AM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote: > > I think this strikes a fair balance between promoting packaging hygiene > > and recognizing that not all upstream communities feel the same way Fedora > > packagers do about bundled libraries. > The thing is, it should NOT matter at

Re: what it takes to unbundle, in triangle form

On Thu, Oct 08, 2015 at 02:50:59PM +0200, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: > There was a middle ground there that could have been pursued a little > more: the sandbock repo which less strict guidelines keeping the > current Fedora repo with the current policies. I'm still generally in favor of that (and

Re: XSD on EPEL7

On 10/01/2015 05:35 PM, Antonio Trande wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA256 > > Hi all. > > I need XSD on EPEL7. Is it possible a build? > > Package: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/xsd/ > Bugzilla request: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1251682 > >

what it takes to unbundle, in triangle form

An unbundling triangle: inclination /\ / \ /\ / all \ A / three→ \ B / ideal \ / unbundled \ /package \ /\

Re: Hi Guys !

On 10/07/2015 06:06 PM, Jules Bashizi wrote: > I got admission into some British university and I am to buy a laptop . > wish to know a machine which is good with Linux . any advice on which > and where to get it please ! > > > Hi, I have been using Linux on X series Lenovo Thinkpads for many

Re: what it takes to unbundle, in triangle form

On Thu, Oct 08, 2015 at 08:44:07AM -0400, Matthew Miller wrote: > An unbundling triangle: > > > inclination > > /\ > / \ >/\ > / all \ > A / three→ \ B > / ideal \ >/

how set InitialCC in pkgdb2 for new package

hi i missing somethings... how can set InitialCC with java-sig in pkgdb for a new package? regards thanks in advance gil https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/requests/476 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/requests/477

Re: XSD on EPEL7

On 10/08/2015 03:13 PM, Antonio Trande wrote: On 10/01/2015 05:35 PM, Antonio Trande wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 Hi all. I need XSD on EPEL7. Is it possible a build? Package: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/xsd/ Bugzilla request:

Re: Summary/Minutes from today's FESCo Meeting (2015-10-07)

2015-10-08 10:55 GMT+02:00 Tomas Mraz : > On Čt, 2015-10-08 at 00:06 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote: >> Stephen Gallagher wrote: >> > * #1483 Decision on bundling policy in the Fedora Package Collection >> > (sgallagh, 18:11:40) >> > * LINK:

Re: Proposal: retire lesstif in f24 and beyond

On 10/08/2015 12:24 PM, Marcin Juszkiewicz wrote: W dniu 08.10.2015 o 12:06, Marcin Juszkiewicz pisze: W dniu 02.10.2015 o 13:33, Jon Ciesla pisze: Lesstif being basically dead upstream and motif being available, I think it's probably time to retire lesstif. If anyone knows of other

Re: Proposal: retire lesstif in f24 and beyond

IMO motif should 'Obsoletes' lesstif in Fedora since motif is free now. -- Yours sincerely, Christopher Meng http://awk.io -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct:

Re: how set InitialCC in pkgdb2 for new package

Dne 8.10.2015 v 16:44 gil napsal(a): > hi > i missing somethings... > how can set InitialCC with java-sig in pkgdb for a new package? > regards > thanks in advance > gil > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/requests/476 > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/requests/477 >

Re: how set InitialCC in pkgdb2 for new package

On Qui, 2015-10-08 at 16:57 +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote: > Dne 8.10.2015 v 16:44 gil napsal(a): > > hi > > i missing somethings... > > how can set InitialCC with java-sig in pkgdb for a new package? > > regards > > thanks in advance > > gil > >

Re: XSD on EPEL7

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 10/08/2015 05:19 PM, Jakub Jelen wrote: > On 10/08/2015 03:13 PM, Antonio Trande wrote: >> On 10/01/2015 05:35 PM, Antonio Trande wrote: >>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 >>> >>> Hi all. >>> >>> I need XSD on EPEL7. Is it

Re: Proposal: retire lesstif in f24 and beyond

On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 10:38 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > On 10/08/2015 12:24 PM, Marcin Juszkiewicz wrote: > >> W dniu 08.10.2015 o 12:06, Marcin Juszkiewicz pisze: >> >>> W dniu 02.10.2015 o 13:33, Jon Ciesla pisze: >>> Lesstif being basically dead upstream and motif

Re: XSD on EPEL7

On 10/08/2015 05:30 PM, Antonio Trande wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 10/08/2015 05:19 PM, Jakub Jelen wrote: On 10/08/2015 03:13 PM, Antonio Trande wrote: On 10/01/2015 05:35 PM, Antonio Trande wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 Hi all. I

Re: Hi Guys !

On Thu, 8 Oct 2015 00:06:06 +0200 Jules Bashizi wrote: > I got admission into some British university and I am to buy a > laptop . wish to know a machine which is good with Linux . any advice > on which and where to get it please ! Hey Jules. Welcome to the world of

Re: what it takes to unbundle, in triangle form

On 10/08/2015 02:01 PM, Matthew Miller wrote: > On Thu, Oct 08, 2015 at 02:50:59PM +0200, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: >> There was a middle ground there that could have been pursued a little >> more: the sandbock repo which less strict guidelines keeping the >> current Fedora repo with the current

Re: how set InitialCC in pkgdb2 for new package

On Thu, Oct 08, 2015 at 04:07:20PM +0100, Sérgio Basto wrote: > On Qui, 2015-10-08 at 16:57 +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote: > > Dne 8.10.2015 v 16:44 gil napsal(a): > > > hi > > > i missing somethings... > > > how can set InitialCC with java-sig in pkgdb for a new package? > > > regards > > > thanks

Re: how set InitialCC in pkgdb2 for new package

On Thu, Oct 08, 2015 at 04:57:27PM +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote: > Dne 8.10.2015 v 16:44 gil napsal(a): > > hi > > i missing somethings... > > how can set InitialCC with java-sig in pkgdb for a new package? > > regards > > thanks in advance > > gil > >

Re: XSD on EPEL7

On 10/08/2015 05:47 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > On 10/08/2015 05:30 PM, Antonio Trande wrote: > > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > > Hash: SHA256 > > > > On 10/08/2015 05:19 PM, Jakub Jelen wrote: > >> On 10/08/2015 03:13 PM, Antonio Trande wrote: > >>> On 10/01/2015 05:35 PM, Antonio Trande

Re: Summary/Minutes from today's FESCo Meeting (2015-10-07)

On Thu, 2015-10-08 at 10:55 +0200, Tomas Mraz wrote: > Yes, it seems the quantity over quality view won. :( This is a false dichotomy. The ultimate metric of quality is whether the distribution contains a working copy of the software you want to run. Bundling is a maintenance concern for

install custom rpm package: failed dependencies

I wrote a .spec file to build a pacakge with many shared librairies installed by Intel parallel studio 2016. There is no Fedora package for Intel, but the installation script install many .rpm packages, and all are correctly listed when running $ dnf list Building my package goes fine. I am no

Re: install custom rpm package: failed dependencies

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 10/08/2015 07:10 PM, arnaud gaboury wrote: > I wrote a .spec file to build a pacakge with many shared > librairies installed by Intel parallel studio 2016. > > There is no Fedora package for Intel, but the installation script > install many

Re: install custom rpm package: failed dependencies

On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 7:30 PM, Antonio Trande wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA256 > > On 10/08/2015 07:10 PM, arnaud gaboury wrote: >> I wrote a .spec file to build a pacakge with many shared >> librairies installed by Intel parallel studio 2016. >>

Re: install custom rpm package: failed dependencies

On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 8:52 PM, Reindl Harald wrote: > > > Am 08.10.2015 um 20:44 schrieb arnaud gaboury: >> >> I must have done some errors in my spec file and I am looking for any >> hint why my rpm claims these shared libraries when they are installed > > > installed

Re: what it takes to unbundle, in triangle form

On Thu, Oct 08, 2015 at 03:37:32PM +0100, Andrew Haley wrote: > Maybe we're trying to do too much. > > I suppose it's a question of choosing to do something which from a > software engineering perspective is not the best practice or not > including a package at all. I'd certainly prefer to see a

Re: install custom rpm package: failed dependencies

On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 7:30 PM, Antonio Trande wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA256 > > On 10/08/2015 07:10 PM, arnaud gaboury wrote: >> I wrote a .spec file to build a pacakge with many shared >> librairies installed by Intel parallel studio 2016. >>

Re: install custom rpm package: failed dependencies

Am 08.10.2015 um 21:06 schrieb arnaud gaboury: Downloading from Intel website the parallel studio 2016. There is a folder with all rpm packages and a script to install them. I understand this package is NOT part of Fedora, but neither part of RPM fusion. So I must not installed it? no, but

Re: Summary/Minutes from today's FESCo Meeting (2015-10-07)

On 10/08/2015 08:48 AM, Haïkel wrote: [snip] Please keep in mind, that Fesco is aware this is not a perfect solution, and we''ll gladly review any proposals to improve this policy. But we can keep discussing this for years, or try to solve this issue incrementally. We chose the latter. [snip]

Re: Proposal to reduce anti-bundling requirements

Emmanuel Seyman wrote: > * Kevin Kofler [08/10/2015 02:33] : >> >> The thing is, it should NOT matter at all how upstream feels. If we treat >> unbundling as something to do with upstream, we already failed. >> Unbundling must be done whether upstream likes it or not, even in >> upstream's spite!

Re: Proposal: retire lesstif in f24 and beyond

Christopher Meng wrote: > IMO motif should 'Obsoletes' lesstif in Fedora since motif is free now. The reason we kept lesstif even after OpenMotif was finally freed is because OpenMotif only implements the Motif 2 API, whereas lesstif implemented the Motif 1 API. Back then, a lot of Motif

Re: Summary/Minutes from today's FESCo Meeting (2015-10-07)

Vít Ondruch wrote: > Nothing can stop you fighting against bundling, checking packages, > reporting bundling, working with upstream on unbundling etc. You could > at least try to take a positive view, not the most negative you can. If the maintainer refuses to unbundle against upstream's wishes,

Re: Summary/Minutes from today's FESCo Meeting (2015-10-07)

Adam Jackson wrote: > From the consumer's perspective it makes zero difference whether a > particular library is bundled or not, as long as the app works. Only until they run into their first symbol conflict due to conflicting bundled libraries. And even if there are no symbol conflicts, they

Re: Request for unretirement of aeskulap

Am Mittwoch, den 07.10.2015, 23:21 +0200 schrieb Till Maas: > On Wed, Oct 07, 2015 at 11:03:07PM +0200, Jens Lody wrote: > > > I just filed a (re-)review request on bugzilla [2]. > > The re-review needs to be done by a fellow packager until the > unretirement can happen. > > > I don't know

Re: Proposal to reduce anti-bundling requirements

Neal Gompa wrote: > ​Not that I don't agree that we should pursue unbundling whenever > possible, but I don't remember any contract or terms that explicitly said > *packagers* do the work of *developers* to re-architect > ​applications/services/etc to do stuff like that. In fact, I thought *the >

Re: install custom rpm package: failed dependencies

On 10/08/2015 12:39 PM, arnaud gaboury wrote: On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 9:12 PM, Reindl Harald wrote: Am 08.10.2015 um 21:06 schrieb arnaud gaboury: Downloading from Intel website the parallel studio 2016. There is a folder with all rpm packages and a script to install

Re: Proposal to reduce anti-bundling requirements

Matthew Miller wrote: > In many cases, this effectively means creating a Fedora-specfic fork of > the project. Only if you call patches to the build system (with little to no changes to the actual code) a "fork". > Even if we accept unbundling as goal in itself is a given, there just > aren't

Re: Summary/Minutes from today's FESCo Meeting (2015-10-07)

On 10/08/2015 03:32 PM, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote: On Friday, 09 October 2015 at 00:14, Brendan Conoboy wrote: On 10/08/2015 08:48 AM, Haïkel wrote: [snip] Please keep in mind, that Fesco is aware this is not a perfect solution, and we''ll gladly review any proposals to improve this

Re: Summary/Minutes from today's FESCo Meeting (2015-10-07)

2015-10-09 0:08 GMT+02:00 Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski : > On Wednesday, 07 October 2015 at 21:17, Stephen Gallagher wrote: >> Meeting summary >> --- > [...] >> * #1483 Decision on bundling policy in the Fedora Package Collection >> (sgallagh, 18:11:40) >>

Re: Summary/Minutes from today's FESCo Meeting (2015-10-07)

On Wednesday, 07 October 2015 at 21:17, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > Meeting summary > --- [...] > * #1483 Decision on bundling policy in the Fedora Package Collection > (sgallagh, 18:11:40) > * LINK: http://paste.fedoraproject.org/276064/44243383/ is sgallaghs > proposal without

Re: Summary/Minutes from today's FESCo Meeting (2015-10-07)

On Friday, 09 October 2015 at 00:14, Brendan Conoboy wrote: > On 10/08/2015 08:48 AM, Haïkel wrote: > [snip] > >Please keep in mind, that Fesco is aware this is not a perfect > >solution, and we''ll gladly review any proposals to improve this > >policy. But we can keep discussing this for years,

Re: Proposal to reduce anti-bundling requirements

2015-10-09 0:42 GMT+02:00 Kevin Kofler : > Neal Gompa wrote: >> Not that I don't agree that we should pursue unbundling whenever >> possible, but I don't remember any contract or terms that explicitly said >> *packagers* do the work of *developers* to re-architect >>

Re: Summary/Minutes from today's FESCo Meeting (2015-10-07)

Haïkel wrote: > This was discussed, I remember that this very point being raised by rishi. > We agreed (but not voted) that packages with dead upstream should > unbundle. But it is only policy if it is written down in the letter of the policy. > => I don't think anyone is against strict

Re: Summary/Minutes from today's FESCo Meeting (2015-10-07)

Haïkel wrote: > Not that I'm 100% happy with the way it happened but this has been a > very long-lived topic. To some, it'll be a hasty decision, to others, > it's already a late one. There's a REASON it had always been shot down so far! > Please keep in mind, that Fesco is aware this is not a

Re: Summary/Minutes from today's FESCo Meeting (2015-10-07)

Brendan Conoboy wrote: > Hey, you sound pretty upset. The analogy on offer is quite extreme, > presumably in proportion to how bothered you are, and unfortunately > suggests a negative view of the those who proposed/supported the > change. Let's try a different analogy: Fedora is the house, the

Re: Proposal to reduce anti-bundling requirements

On Fri, Oct 09, 2015 at 12:58:05AM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote: > Only if you call patches to the build system (with little to no changes to > the actual code) a "fork". There might be some wording change to "upstreams allow" in the new policy to include this as should-be-unbundled cases —

Re: Proposal to reduce anti-bundling requirements

Matthew Miller wrote: > Find all the bundled libraries in all of Fedora, even with minor > variations in code and version. When there's a vulnerability, > automatically generate patches, bump the RPMs, rebuild test builds, run > them through automated testing (including a new test for whatever >

Re: install custom rpm package: failed dependencies

Am 08.10.2015 um 20:44 schrieb arnaud gaboury: On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 8:14 PM, Orion Poplawski wrote: On 10/08/2015 11:10 AM, arnaud gaboury wrote: I wrote a .spec file to build a pacakge with many shared librairies installed by Intel parallel studio 2016. This

Re: install custom rpm package: failed dependencies

Am 08.10.2015 um 20:44 schrieb arnaud gaboury: I must have done some errors in my spec file and I am looking for any hint why my rpm claims these shared libraries when they are installed installed how? if the are not present in any RPM, well, they are not installed even if they are

Fedora 23 Branched 20151008 compose check report

No missing expected images. No images in this compose but not 23 Branched 20151007 Images in 23 Branched 20151007 but not this: Cloud docker x86_64 Failed openQA tests: 7 of 52 ID: 5127Test: x86_64 generic_boot default_install@uefi ID: 5124Test: x86_64 kde_live default_install

Re: install custom rpm package: failed dependencies

On 10/08/2015 11:10 AM, arnaud gaboury wrote: > I wrote a .spec file to build a pacakge with many shared librairies > installed by Intel parallel studio 2016. This doesn't belong on Fedora devel, it has nothing to do with Fedora development. -- Orion Poplawski Technical Manager

Fedora Rawhide 20151008 compose check report

No missing expected images. No images in this compose but not Rawhide 20151007 Images in Rawhide 20151007 but not this: Scientific_kde live i386 Scientific_kde live x86_64 Failed openQA tests: 49 of 52 ID: 5128Test: i386 universal server_btrfs ID: 5072Test: x86_64

Re: install custom rpm package: failed dependencies

On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 8:14 PM, Orion Poplawski wrote: > On 10/08/2015 11:10 AM, arnaud gaboury wrote: >> I wrote a .spec file to build a pacakge with many shared librairies >> installed by Intel parallel studio 2016. > > This doesn't belong on Fedora devel, it has nothing to

Re: install custom rpm package: failed dependencies

On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 9:12 PM, Reindl Harald wrote: > > > Am 08.10.2015 um 21:06 schrieb arnaud gaboury: >> >> Downloading from Intel website the parallel studio 2016. There is a >> folder with all rpm packages and a script to install them. I >> understand this package is

[Bug 1269740] perl-Parse-CPAN-Packages-Fast-0.09 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1269740 --- Comment #1 from Upstream Release Monitoring --- Created attachment 1080862 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1080862=edit [patch] Update to 0.09 (#1269740) -- You are

[Bug 1269739] perl-LWP-Protocol-PSGI-0.08 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1269739 --- Comment #1 from Upstream Release Monitoring --- Created attachment 1080861 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1080861=edit [patch] Update to 0.08 (#1269739) -- You are

[Bug 1269740] New: perl-Parse-CPAN-Packages-Fast-0.09 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1269740 Bug ID: 1269740 Summary: perl-Parse-CPAN-Packages-Fast-0.09 is available Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: perl-Parse-CPAN-Packages-Fast Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged

[Bug 1269741] perl-Perl-Critic-Moose-1.04 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1269741 Petr Pisar changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Fixed In

[Bug 1269734] Upgrade perl-DateTime-Format-Strptime to 1.57

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1269734 Petr Pisar changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Fixed In

[Bug 1269739] New: perl-LWP-Protocol-PSGI-0.08 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1269739 Bug ID: 1269739 Summary: perl-LWP-Protocol-PSGI-0.08 is available Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: perl-LWP-Protocol-PSGI Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged

[Bug 1269739] perl-LWP-Protocol-PSGI-0.08 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1269739 --- Comment #2 from Upstream Release Monitoring --- Scratch build failed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=11368448 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC

[Bug 1269734] Upgrade perl-DateTime-Format-Strptime to 1.57

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1269734 Petr Pisar changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED

[Bug 1268517] perl-Verilog-Perl-3.416 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1268517 Fedora Admin XMLRPC Client changed: What|Removed |Added

[Bug 1234551] Package should not ship a separate emacs sub-package

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1234551 Fedora Admin XMLRPC Client changed: What|Removed |Added

Re: Orphaned Packages in epel5 (2015-10-07)

On Thu, Oct 08, 2015 at 09:57:20AM +0100, Paul Howarth wrote: > On 07/10/15 23:20, opensou...@till.name wrote: > >Depending on: perl-Perlilog (53), status change: 2015-10-07 (0 weeks ago) > > opensips (maintained by: ivaxer, peter) > > opensips-perl-1.7.2-2.el5.x86_64 requires

[Bug 1269734] New: Upgrade perl-DateTime-Format-Strptime to 1.57

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1269734 Bug ID: 1269734 Summary: Upgrade perl-DateTime-Format-Strptime to 1.57 Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: perl-DateTime-Format-Strptime Keywords: FutureFeature

pghmcfc pushed to perl-namespace-clean (perl-namespace-clean-0.26-1.fc24). "Update to 0.26 (..more)"

From f1bdce17855632ae61164c6b22156573304cd683 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Paul Howarth Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2015 20:19:21 +0100 Subject: Update to 0.26 - New upstream release 0.26 - Exclusively use Package::Stash::PP on perls < 5.8.7 until a fixed Package::Stash::XS ships

[Bug 1269741] perl-Perl-Critic-Moose-1.04 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1269741 Petr Pisar changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED

ppisar uploaded DateTime-Format-Strptime-1.57.tar.gz for perl-DateTime-Format-Strptime

700183a1bcf396b91d72a4a04b7aeba3 DateTime-Format-Strptime-1.57.tar.gz http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/lookaside/pkgs/perl-DateTime-Format-Strptime/DateTime-Format-Strptime-1.57.tar.gz/md5/700183a1bcf396b91d72a4a04b7aeba3/DateTime-Format-Strptime-1.57.tar.gz -- Fedora Extras Perl SIG

Orphaned Packages in rawhide (2015-10-07)

The following packages are orphaned and will be retired when they are orphaned for six weeks, unless someone adopts them. If you know for sure that the package should be retired, please do so now with a proper reason: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_remove_a_package_at_end_of_life Note: If

Orphaned Packages in branched (2015-10-07)

The following packages are orphaned and will be retired when they are orphaned for six weeks, unless someone adopts them. If you know for sure that the package should be retired, please do so now with a proper reason: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_remove_a_package_at_end_of_life Note: If

[Bug 1269736] New: Upgrade perl-Image-Xbm to 1.09

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1269736 Bug ID: 1269736 Summary: Upgrade perl-Image-Xbm to 1.09 Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: perl-Image-Xbm Keywords: FutureFeature Assignee: tcall...@redhat.com

[Bug 1269740] perl-Parse-CPAN-Packages-Fast-0.09 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1269740 --- Comment #2 from Upstream Release Monitoring --- Scratch build completed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=11368465 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the

[Bug 1269741] New: perl-Perl-Critic-Moose-1.04 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1269741 Bug ID: 1269741 Summary: perl-Perl-Critic-Moose-1.04 is available Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: perl-Perl-Critic-Moose Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged

[Bug 1269747] New: Upgrade perl-Variable-Magic to 0.59

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1269747 Bug ID: 1269747 Summary: Upgrade perl-Variable-Magic to 0.59 Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: perl-Variable-Magic Keywords: FutureFeature Assignee:

ppisar pushed to perl-Perl-Critic-Moose (master). "1.04 bump"

From 36c121a7b3190999a962d87759f2dec1a628ff9d Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: =?UTF-8?q?Petr=20P=C3=ADsa=C5=99?= Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 09:07:28 +0200 Subject: 1.04 bump --- .gitignore | 1 + perl-Perl-Critic-Moose.spec | 9 +++-- sources

ppisar pushed to perl-DateTime-Format-Strptime (master). "1.57 bump"

From 85b64c7a6ac8accaf613521be8d8aac4942f00dd Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: =?UTF-8?q?Petr=20P=C3=ADsa=C5=99?= Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 09:47:37 +0200 Subject: 1.57 bump --- perl-DateTime-Format-Strptime.spec | 32 +--- sources

ppisar uploaded Perl-Critic-Moose-1.04.tar.gz for perl-Perl-Critic-Moose

b89a7e078f655323e4f2a00abeae23f3 Perl-Critic-Moose-1.04.tar.gz http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/lookaside/pkgs/perl-Perl-Critic-Moose/Perl-Critic-Moose-1.04.tar.gz/md5/b89a7e078f655323e4f2a00abeae23f3/Perl-Critic-Moose-1.04.tar.gz -- Fedora Extras Perl SIG

Re: Orphaned Packages in epel5 (2015-10-07)

On 07/10/15 23:20, opensou...@till.name wrote: Depending on: perl-Perlilog (53), status change: 2015-10-07 (0 weeks ago) opensips (maintained by: ivaxer, peter) opensips-perl-1.7.2-2.el5.x86_64 requires perl(UNIVERSAL) opensips-perlvdb-1.7.2-2.el5.x86_64

[Bug 1268517] perl-Verilog-Perl-3.416 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1268517 Jitka Plesnikova changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Fixed

Re: Orphaned Packages in rawhide (2015-10-07)

In gmane.linux.redhat.fedora.devel, you wrote: > The following packages require above mentioned packages: [...] > perl-Catalyst-Runtime (maintained by: eseyman, iarnell, jplesnik, > mmaslano, perl-sig, ppisar, psabata) > perl-Catalyst-Runtime-5.90101-1.fc24.noarch requires >

  1   2   >