Self Introduction
Hello! My name is Justin, I go by brutal_chaos on IRC, don't be shy say hi. I come to you in hopes of becoming a (good) package maintainer for Fedora. I am starting off by packaging a new python package, python-construct, and I am looking for sponsorship. Below is the link to my first package's review request. Please, have a look, let me know what you think! Review Request URIL: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=694718 -- - Justin Noah -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Status of pino in F15
Hi all, I apologise if this sounds like a bit of an extended whinge; it's not meant to but I'm not sure how better to raise these issues. I've spent a half-hour this morning going through various bits of pino and raising appropriate bugs, as I'm now using F15 as my full-time system (and I'm a heavy user of pino from F14). Now, pino in F14 wasn't great particularly with the issues around twitter support. I don't know what has happened since then, though, but it's basically unusable now. Feel free to go through my bugs, but as highlights: * it doesn't minimise anywhere on the gnome3 desktop * it doesn't automatically refresh * clicking on friend's names gets a / filesystem listing In addition, [re] tweeting/denting fails randomly in a pattern I've not yet been able to nail down for a bug report, there are large chunks of unfinished UI and stuff which plain doesn't work. I bz'd the missing menu items; there are also icons and right-click menu items which do nothing. Now, pino is currently a default package in the Graphical Internet. I would argue that right now, unless there is some super-ninja plan, it should be demoted to optional at best. It should not be on the live CD in this state. I apologise for bringing this up so late in the beta cycle - I'm sure the beta is spinning as I type - but I honestly don't think it can ship in this state. Cheers Alex. -- This message was scanned by Better Hosted and is believed to be clean. http://www.betterhosted.com -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Lots of selinux errors in F-15
Hello. I've got lots of errors from selinux with latest F-15 packages. Is this a known issue(s)? http://fpaste.org/Sgf5/ I was even forced to switch to permissive mode. Also I was very surprised that systemd cannot start avahi-daemon and rsyslogd (as well as some issues with NFS mounts, but I don't think that these issues are worth mentioning). -- With best regards, Peter Lemenkov. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Lots of selinux errors in F-15
On Fri, Apr 08, 2011 at 12:19:27PM +0400, Peter Lemenkov wrote: Hello. I've got lots of errors from selinux with latest F-15 packages. Is this a known issue(s)? http://fpaste.org/Sgf5/ I was even forced to switch to permissive mode. tcontext=system_u:object_r:file_t:s0 Somehow your files lost labelling (have you booted with selinux disabled in the past?). Relabelling should fix you issues. -- Tomasz TorczThere exists no separation between gods and men: xmpp: zdzich...@chrome.pl one blends softly casual into the other. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
[perl-Coro] Rebuild with EV support.
commit 2c6355b078975c2a899fb78b29715d8b55aceac1
Author: Mathieu Bridon boche...@fedoraproject.org
Date: Thu Apr 7 12:03:57 2011 +0800
Rebuild with EV support.
perl-Coro.spec |7 +--
1 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
---
diff --git a/perl-Coro.spec b/perl-Coro.spec
index 21f6cf8..319951a 100644
--- a/perl-Coro.spec
+++ b/perl-Coro.spec
@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
Name: perl-Coro
Version:5.372
-Release:1%{?dist}
+Release:2%{?dist}
Summary:The only real threads in perl
License:GPL+ or Artistic
Group: Development/Libraries
@@ -19,7 +19,7 @@ BuildRequires: perl(AnyEvent::AIO) = 1
BuildRequires: perl(AnyEvent::BDB) = 1
BuildRequires: perl(BDB)
# perl-EV not packaged
-#BuildRequires: perl(EV) = 3
+BuildRequires: perl(EV) = 3
BuildRequires: perl(Event) = 1.08
BuildRequires: perl(IO::AIO) = 3.1
Requires: perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_%(eval `%{__perl} -V:version`; echo
$version))
@@ -94,6 +94,9 @@ make test
%{_mandir}/man3/*
%changelog
+* Thu Apr 07 2011 Mathieu Bridon boche...@fedoraproject.org - 5.372-2
+- Rebuild with EV support.
+
* Mon Mar 07 2011 Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com - 5.372-1
- 5.372 bump
--
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: Lots of selinux errors in F-15
2011/4/8 Tomasz Torcz to...@pipebreaker.pl: On Fri, Apr 08, 2011 at 12:19:27PM +0400, Peter Lemenkov wrote: Hello. I've got lots of errors from selinux with latest F-15 packages. Is this a known issue(s)? http://fpaste.org/Sgf5/ I was even forced to switch to permissive mode. tcontext=system_u:object_r:file_t:s0 Somehow your files lost labelling (have you booted with selinux disabled in the past?). Relabelling should fix you issues. Thanks! It does help me (some issues are gone now). -- With best regards, Peter Lemenkov. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
resolved [Re: heads up: new rawhide kernel doesn't boot for me
Jim Meyering wrote: Daniel J Walsh wrote: On 04/07/2011 07:46 AM, Jim Meyering wrote: I updated my rawhide VM today (on F15 host), but it failed to reboot using the new kernel, vmlinuz-2.6.39-0.rc1.git5.0.fc16.x86_64 I got a failure (VFS diagnostic complaining that the UUID-specified root partition was not available), then panic. Two subsequent attempts to reboot failed because even though I got to the grub kernel-selection menu, I was unable to get a response out of the interface, so couldn't select any other kernel or even edit a grub stanza. Luckily for me, on the third attempt, grub's UI did respond to down-arrow and ENTER, so I could select the preceding kernel, and that one did manage to boot. If necessary (i.e., if it's not already fixed), I'll file a BZ. kernel-2.6.39-0.rc2.git0.0.fc16 Works for me. Good to know. Thanks, Dan. That one failed for me, too, in the same way. I've just noticed that the grub.conf stanzas for the two losing kernels lack an initrd initramfs-... line, so reinstalled the latest kernel: # yum reinstall -y kernel ... Downloading Packages: kernel-2.6.39-0.rc2.git0.0.fc16.x86_64.rpm| 23 MB 01:38 Running Transaction Check Running Transaction Test Transaction Test Succeeded Running Transaction etckeeper: pre transaction commit Installing : kernel-2.6.39-0.rc2.git0.0.fc16.x86_641/1 Non-fatal POSTTRANS scriptlet failure in rpm package kernel-2.6.39-0.rc2.git0.0.fc16.x86_64 etckeeper: post transaction commit Installed: kernel.x86_64 0:2.6.39-0.rc2.git0.0.fc16 Complete! Still no initramfs. That's definitely a problem. I ran it one more time, this time while tailing /var/log/audit/audit.log, which led me to the culprit: me. I'm using a separate, memory-backed, private TMPDIR, e.g., /t/jt-3k07S5, and had indeed set perms of /t, -- and its context via this, semanage fcontext -a -t tmp_t '/t(/.*)? but had forgotten to set its context: chcon --ref /tmp /t Once I fixed that, reinstalling the kernel did create the initramfs. So maybe there *is* a bug to report after all: With TMPDIR pointing to a directory with context not like /tmp, the kernel's initramfs-building code fails and gives a diagnostic (calling it Non-fatal), but lets the installation of a losing kernel succeed. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: resolved [Re: heads up: new rawhide kernel doesn't boot for me
Am 08.04.2011 12:38, schrieb Jim Meyering: So maybe there *is* a bug to report after all: With TMPDIR pointing to a directory with context not like /tmp, the kernel's initramfs-building code fails and gives a diagnostic (calling it Non-fatal), but lets the installation of a losing kernel succeed. Then again... just don't do that ... root-gun-foot ... # rm -fr / -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: F15: NIS, NFS mounts and systemd
On 04/05/2011 04:42 PM, Severin Gehwolf wrote: Hi, I am trying to get NIS and /home NFS mounts working on F15. In essence, the dependency chain of services I need on my computer is as follows: 1. Bring up the network interface 2. Mount /home via NFS (maybe this should be done last?) 3. Make sure NIS is available (I also need Kerberos for validating passwords of NIS users) On F14 I managed to do this by using the network service, which is brought up first, then NFS shares are mounted and finally the ypbind service is started. How would I do something similar using systemd? I'm totally cool with using NetworkManager instead of network if that's preferred, but I'd like it to work for both runlevels 3 and 5. The immediate issue I am facing at the moment is that the network is not brought up automatically on boot (I have chkconfig'ed it on for runlevels 3 and 5). If I manually bring it up using ifup it works fine. Another problem I am having is that NIS does not seem to work at all (service is started, SELinux properly configured), but cannot get any NIS accounts. Thanks for any pointers! --Severin Just a remark for anybody who doesn't noticed it yet, there was a problem in ypbind started together with the new NetworkManager, more info in https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=693873 Cheers, Honza -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: F15: NIS, NFS mounts and systemd
On 04/05/2011 10:03 PM, Michał Piotrowski wrote: W dniu 5 kwietnia 2011 21:49 użytkownik Michał Piotrowski mkkp...@gmail.com napisał: W dniu 5 kwietnia 2011 21:48 użytkownik Michał Piotrowski mkkp...@gmail.com napisał: Try to add some informations about ordering to ypbind script ### BEGIN INIT INFO # Provides: ypbind # Required-Start: $local_fs $remote_fs $network # Required-Stop: $local_fs $remote_fs $network # Short-Description: Starts the ypbind daemon # Description: The Apache HTTP Server is an extensible server Without apache part :) ### END INIT INFO or better - rewrite this POS http://notendur.hi.is/~johannbg/systemd/etc/rc.d/init.d/ypbind to native systemd service I am afraid that none of these scripts http://notendur.hi.is/~johannbg/systemd/etc/rc.d/init.d/ypbind http://notendur.hi.is/~johannbg/systemd/etc/rc.d/init.d/yppasswdd http://notendur.hi.is/~johannbg/systemd/etc/rc.d/init.d/ypserv http://notendur.hi.is/~johannbg/systemd/etc/rc.d/init.d/ypxfrd does have the correct ordering information. I can help with rewriting to native sysetmd services, but I need a tester - I do not use this service, so I'm not sure if I can correctly configure and test. I'm going to solve these issues soon, first bug is already submitted (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=694454), the another will follow. Honza -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Self Introduction - nitrate review request
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 04/08/2011 06:34 AM, Yuguang Wang wrote: hi guys, This is Yuguang Wang from Red Hat Beijing QE Team. I'm currently working on nitrate, a test case management system. It's an open-source project and is available here: https://fedorahosted.org/nitrate I'm trying to make this project a Fedora Approved Package, following is the review request: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=690728 Would anyone please be so kind to help review it? It's my first package so I also need to get sponsored into the packager group. Hi Yuguang, Welcome! Wow, you're the second Red Hat Beijing dev I'm sponsoring in recent weeks. They must be expanding there. Will take a look and review it over the weekend. Best regards, - -- Michel Alexandre Salim Fedora Project Contributor: http://fedoraproject.org/ Email: sali...@fedoraproject.org | GPG key ID: 78884778 Jabber: hir...@jabber.ccc.de | IRC: hir...@irc.freenode.net () ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail /\ www.asciiribbon.org - against proprietary attachments -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAk2fLwIACgkQNd069XiIR3iWzACdGBtjLmZGYgRVx2stH8NvIsNy M1AAmQHdU/q5M43/qXTpwTfCnNeGPZcy =jVVK -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: f15 libchamplain bump
On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 14:37:48 -0400, Brian wrote: Hi, Just giving a heads up about an update to libchamplain to the latest stable version. The apps affected are: * empathy * claws-mail-plugins-geolocation * emerillon * meego-panel-status I'll be working on rebuilding this apps later today, unless the package owners themselves want to handle this. Any status update here? Is there a releng ticket for the koji buildroot override? If so, I couldn't find it. Currently, there are two competing test updates in bodhi: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/libchamplain-0.9.1-1.fc15 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/libchamplain-0.10.0-1.fc15 -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Status of pino in F15
On Fri, 2011-04-08 at 08:58 +0100, Alex Hudson wrote: I apologise for bringing this up so late in the beta cycle - I'm sure the beta is spinning as I type - but I honestly don't think it can ship in this state. As far as that goes - the functionality of non-vital apps within the image is not an issue for the Beta criteria. Unless it's on the panel by default and crashes (which it isn't), nothing to do with pino can block the Beta. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Lots of selinux errors in F-15
On Fri, 2011-04-08 at 12:19 +0400, Peter Lemenkov wrote: Hello. I've got lots of errors from selinux with latest F-15 packages. Is this a known issue(s)? You need selinux-policy-3.9.16-13.fc15 , which isn't on most mirrors yet. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
[Bug 620413] perl-Test-Memory-Cycle - Request for EL-6 branch
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=620413 Paul Howarth p...@city-fan.org changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #4 from Paul Howarth p...@city-fan.org 2011-04-08 12:09:13 EDT --- Package Change Request == Package Name: perl-Test-Memory-Cycle New Branches: EL-4 Owners: pghmcfc InitialCC: perl-sig -- 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-de...@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/perl-devel
Re: Status of pino in F15
Adam, On Fri, 2011-04-08 at 08:58 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: On Fri, 2011-04-08 at 08:58 +0100, Alex Hudson wrote: I apologise for bringing this up so late in the beta cycle - I'm sure the beta is spinning as I type - but I honestly don't think it can ship in this state. As far as that goes - the functionality of non-vital apps within the image is not an issue for the Beta criteria. Unless it's on the panel by default and crashes (which it isn't), nothing to do with pino can block the Beta. Sorry, I think you're misunderstanding what I'm asking, so let me clarify: I'm not asking that this block the beta, I'm asking whether or not this should be shipped by default. I mentioned the beta because ideally stuff like this would be sorted out by now. I should have just said so late in the release cycle. I think shipping F15 with Pino included on the Live CD by default, in the condition it is currently in, would be a huge error. Cheers, Alex. -- This message was scanned by Better Hosted and is believed to be clean. http://www.betterhosted.com -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: [Test-Announce] Fedora 15 Beta RC1 Available Now!
On 04/07/2011 08:38 PM, Andre Robatino wrote: Fedora 15 Beta RC1 Please don't mix beta and RC together. Beta and RC are two distinct parts of the release cycle, so it's confusing to see them together, just like it would be confusing to see an announcement about alpha beta. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: [Test-Announce] Fedora 15 Beta RC1 Available Now!
On Friday, April 08, 2011 12:37:17 PM Christopher Aillon wrote: On 04/07/2011 08:38 PM, Andre Robatino wrote: Fedora 15 Beta RC1 Please don't mix beta and RC together. Beta and RC are two distinct parts of the release cycle, so it's confusing to see them together, just like it would be confusing to see an announcement about alpha beta. Chris its the teminology we have always used. each phase has a series of release candidates. for alpha we do a series of RC composes until we get one that meets the release criteria, it then becomes the alpha release. for beta we do a series of RC composes until we get one that meets the release criteria, it then becomes the beta release. for GA we do a series of RC composes until we get one that meets the release criteria, it then becomes the GA release. Its the way we do it. Dennis signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
[389-devel] Please review: Bug 693962 - Full replica push loses some entries with multi-valued RDNs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=693962 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=490849action=diff https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=490849action=edit -- 389-devel mailing list 389-de...@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/389-devel
Re: [Test-Announce] Fedora 15 Beta RC1 Available Now!
On 04/08/2011 06:11 PM, Chris Adams wrote: Once upon a time, Dennis Gilmoreden...@ausil.us said: Chris its the teminology we have always used. each phase has a series of release candidates. I thought they were called test composes or TC, not RC. I dont see any reason why we cant use TC if RC is causing confusion. JBG -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: [Test-Announce] Fedora 15 Beta RC1 Available Now!
On Friday, April 08, 2011 01:11:18 PM Chris Adams wrote: Once upon a time, Dennis Gilmore den...@ausil.us said: Chris its the teminology we have always used. each phase has a series of release candidates. I thought they were called test composes or TC, not RC. the test compose is a compose we do before starting the RC composes to see what state we are in. Its a preperation thing we do. its never intended to be released as the alpha, beta, GA release, where RC composes are intended to be a Alpha, beta or GA release. Dennis signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
2011-04-08 - F-15-Beta blocker bug review #5 - recap
Minutes: http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-bugzappers/2011-04-08/f-15-beta-blocker-review.2011-04-08-17.00.html Minutes (text): http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-bugzappers/2011-04-08/f-15-beta-blocker-review.2011-04-08-17.00.txt Log: http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-bugzappers/2011-04-08/f-15-beta-blocker-review.2011-04-08-17.00.log.html Meeting summary --- * Roll Call (jlaska, 17:00:29) * Why are here? (jlaska, 17:04:32) * LINK: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_Blocker_Bug_Meeting (jlaska, 17:04:51) * LINK: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Current_Release_Blockers (jlaska, 17:05:31) * We are here to evaluate whether proposed blockers meet the Beta release criteria, and to review accepted blocker bugs for progress/issues (jlaska, 17:06:00) * https://bugzilla.redhat.com/693588 (jlaska, 17:07:06) * NetworkManager applet cannot scroll the list of wireless networks (jlaska, 17:07:20) * IDEA: Add explicit requirement to release criteria for network enablement (jlaska, 17:13:34) * AGREED: 693588 - AcceptedBlocker for Beta. Issue already fixed in RC1, made it difficult to connect to wireless network in certain situations (jlaska, 17:13:56) * https://bugzilla.redhat.com/692573 (jlaska, 17:14:01) * SELINUX=disabled in /etc/selinux/config causes failure to boot; libselinux lies to systemd about SELinux state (jlaska, 17:14:13) * AGREED: 692573 - AcceptedBlocker for beta. Issue fixed in latest libselinux already included in RC1 (jlaska, 17:16:46) * https://bugzilla.redhat.com/694079 (jlaska, 17:17:03) * AGREED: 694079 - AcceptedBlocker for Beta. Impacted Alpha criteria by preventing user creation in firstboot or running firstboot on every boot. (jlaska, 17:19:08) * https://bugzilla.redhat.com/694239 (jlaska, 17:19:18) * Live image built with latest systemd/selinux-policy etc fails to boot with selinux enabled (jlaska, 17:19:32) * AGREED: 694239 - AcceptedBlocker. Prevented system boot after installation. Verified and fixed in RC1 (jlaska, 17:21:10) * https://bugzilla.redhat.com/693247 (jlaska, 17:21:27) * SELinux is preventing /usr/bin/pulseaudio from 'read' accesses on the file +sound:card29 (jlaska, 17:21:45) * LINK: http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/hotplug/udev.git;a=commit;h=51f43b53293c4cc64c2a55598491c6cbf27b6bd5;2 (jlaska, 17:23:35) * AGREED: known consequences of 693247 not serious enough to be a Beta blocker: is a Final blocker per the SELinux avcs criterion. If further testing shows any more serious consequences of this bug, we can revisit it being a blocker. (jlaska, 17:40:24) * https://bugzilla.redhat.com/678553 (jlaska, 17:41:37) * NetworkManager doesn't start successfully on bootup after upgrade from F14 - F15 (jlaska, 17:41:48) * LINK: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/NetworkManager-0.8.998-1.fc15 (jlaska, 17:43:12) * ACTION: jlaska - verify 678553 and post into bug report (jlaska, 17:44:02) * https://bugzilla.redhat.com/691139 (jlaska, 17:45:59) * NetworkManager 0.8.997 doesn't connect to hidden wireless network (jlaska, 17:46:11) * LINK: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/control-center-3.0.0.1-2.fc15 (jlaska, 17:46:29) * LINK:(jlaska, 17:47:14) * LINK: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/control-center-3.0.0.1-3.fc15 (jlaska, 17:47:16) * 691139 confirmed fixed by caillon in bodhi, tflink will also test post-meeting (jlaska, 17:48:32) * https://bugzilla.redhat.com/694712 (jlaska, 17:49:00) * Anaconda crashes on launch in F15 Beta RC1 live images (jlaska, 17:49:26) * LINK: http://fpaste.org/YsJw/ (adamw, 17:50:30) * investigating continues on root cause (jlaska, 17:52:13) * https://bugzilla.redhat.com/694716 (jlaska, 17:53:26) * 15 Beta RC1 DVDs fail repoclosure (jlaska, 17:53:37) * New spin-kickstarts package may not be needed, depending how rel-eng creates official ISO media (from git master or from spin-kickstarts rpm) (jlaska, 17:57:13) * Open Discussion (jlaska, 18:00:12) * https://bugzilla.redhat.com/692135 (jlaska, 18:00:46) * Image failed media check (jlaska, 18:01:49) * https://bugzilla.redhat.com/689291 (jlaska, 18:04:22) * error activation_source_schedule(): activation stage already scheduled (jlaska, 18:04:31) * AGREED: 689291 - AcceptedNTH for Beta. Proposed fix already included in RC1 (jlaska, 18:07:01) * https://bugzilla.redhat.com/678236 (jlaska, 18:07:11) * User list sometimes not visible on greeter (jlaska, 18:07:41) * AGREED: 678236 - AcceptedNTH for Beta. If a tested fix is available in time, will include in Beta (jlaska, 18:10:07) * https://bugzilla.redhat.com/693899 (jlaska, 18:10:19) * samba downgrade to 3.5.8 (jlaska, 18:10:30) * AGREED: 693899 - Already fixed in RC1, accepted NTH. Move to VERIFIED (jlaska, 18:16:13) * https://bugzilla.redhat.com/692048
Re: [Test-Announce] Fedora 15 Beta RC1 Available Now!
On 04/08/2011 10:55 AM, Dennis Gilmore wrote: On Friday, April 08, 2011 12:37:17 PM Christopher Aillon wrote: On 04/07/2011 08:38 PM, Andre Robatino wrote: Fedora 15 Beta RC1 Please don't mix beta and RC together. Beta and RC are two distinct parts of the release cycle, so it's confusing to see them together, just like it would be confusing to see an announcement about alpha beta. Chris its the teminology we have always used. each phase has a series of release candidates. ... Its the way we do it. F13 is the earliest mention I can find mention of Beta RC on devel-list. But that doesn't really change the validity of my statement. It's confusing, and we should change it. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: [Test-Announce] Fedora 15 Beta RC1 Available Now!
On 4/8/11 12:14 PM, Christopher Aillon wrote:
Its the way we do it.
F13 is the earliest mention I can find mention of Beta RC on
devel-list. But that doesn't really change the validity of my
statement. It's confusing, and we should change it.
This is fair criticism. I believe I'm the one that started referring to
these composes as release candidates more vocally. We needed a way to
reference the succession of attempted composes for a release point, be
it Alpha, Beta, or GA. Calling them release candidates made sense to
me, however I can see how they could be confusing.
Would it make more sense to refer to these as Alpha Candidate, Beta
Candidate and Release Candidate ? ac{1,2,3}, bc{1,2}, rc1 ?
It does mean the name will change at each stage, but it should be more
descriptive as to what stage we're in.
Thoughts?
--
Jesse Keating
Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature!
identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: [Test-Announce] Fedora 15 Beta RC1 Available Now!
On Fri, Apr 08, 2011 at 09:25:31PM +0100, mike cloaked wrote:
On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 9:19 PM, Jesse Keating jkeat...@redhat.com wrote:
On 4/8/11 12:14 PM, Christopher Aillon wrote:
Its the way we do it.
F13 is the earliest mention I can find mention of Beta RC on
devel-list. But that doesn't really change the validity of my
statement. It's confusing, and we should change it.
This is fair criticism. I believe I'm the one that started referring to
these composes as release candidates more vocally. We needed a way to
reference the succession of attempted composes for a release point, be
it Alpha, Beta, or GA. Calling them release candidates made sense to
me, however I can see how they could be confusing.
Would it make more sense to refer to these as Alpha Candidate, Beta
Candidate and Release Candidate ? ac{1,2,3}, bc{1,2}, rc1 ?
It does mean the name will change at each stage, but it should be more
descriptive as to what stage we're in.
How about the sequence:
Fn-Alpha-Pre.1 Fn-Alpha-Pre.2 . Fn-Alpha
Fn-Beta-Pre.1 Fn-Beta-Pre.2 Fn-Beta-Pre.3 Fn-Beta
Fn-RC1 Fn-RC2 Fn-RC3... Fn (=release)
That is certainly a different color bikeshed from the one Jesse
suggested :)
Its probably best that it be decided for certain /if/ we want to change
before we decide what the new naming convention be. Then we get the
inevitable bikeshedding argument out from under the actual issue that's
been raised here.
--CJD
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: [Test-Announce] Fedora 15 Beta RC1 Available Now!
On Fri, 2011-04-08 at 13:19 -0700, Jesse Keating wrote:
On 4/8/11 12:14 PM, Christopher Aillon wrote:
Its the way we do it.
F13 is the earliest mention I can find mention of Beta RC on
devel-list. But that doesn't really change the validity of my
statement. It's confusing, and we should change it.
This is fair criticism. I believe I'm the one that started referring to
these composes as release candidates more vocally. We needed a way to
reference the succession of attempted composes for a release point, be
it Alpha, Beta, or GA. Calling them release candidates made sense to
me, however I can see how they could be confusing.
Would it make more sense to refer to these as Alpha Candidate, Beta
Candidate and Release Candidate ? ac{1,2,3}, bc{1,2}, rc1 ?
It does mean the name will change at each stage, but it should be more
descriptive as to what stage we're in.
Thoughts?
works for me.
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org
http://www.happyassassin.net
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
[perl-Test-CPAN-Meta-YAML/el5/master] Initial import of perl-Test-CPAN-Meta-YAML-0.17-2
Summary of changes: 505e29d... Initial import of perl-Test-CPAN-Meta-YAML-0.17-2 (*) (*) 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] Fedora 15 Beta RC1 Available Now!
Once upon a time, Jesse Keating jkeat...@redhat.com said:
Would it make more sense to refer to these as Alpha Candidate, Beta
Candidate and Release Candidate ? ac{1,2,3}, bc{1,2}, rc1 ?
That sounds good to me; each is distinguished frmo the other and clearly
describes what it is.
--
Chris Adams cmad...@hiwaay.net
Systems and Network Administrator - HiWAAY Internet Services
I don't speak for anybody but myself - that's enough trouble.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: [Test-Announce] Fedora 15 Beta RC1 Available Now!
On 04/08/2011 04:25 PM, mike cloaked wrote:
On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 9:19 PM, Jesse Keating jkeat...@redhat.com wrote:
Would it make more sense to refer to these as Alpha Candidate, Beta
Candidate and Release Candidate ? ac{1,2,3}, bc{1,2}, rc1 ?
...
How about the sequence:
Fn-Alpha-Pre.1 Fn-Alpha-Pre.2 . Fn-Alpha
Fn-Beta-Pre.1 Fn-Beta-Pre.2 Fn-Beta-Pre.3 Fn-Beta
Fn-RC1 Fn-RC2 Fn-RC3... Fn (=release)
?
I find both above failing in minimal surprise ... and adding unneeded
complexity.
What is confusing about:
Alpha-1, Alpha-2 ... Alpha-N
Beta-1 Beta-2 Beta-N
RC-1, RC-2 ... RC-N
Released.
Why on earth do we need a 'candidate' for a release candidate, or an
alpha or beta candidate. We have ordinal numbers on them ... so just use
them.
.. if RC1 is lacking - fine - we'll move to RC2 ... etc.
My opinion of course :-)
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
[perl-Test-CPAN-Meta-YAML/el4/master] Initial import of perl-Test-CPAN-Meta-YAML-0.17-2
Summary of changes: 505e29d... Initial import of perl-Test-CPAN-Meta-YAML-0.17-2 (*) (*) 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] Fedora 15 Beta RC1 Available Now!
On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 9:37 PM, Genes MailLists li...@sapience.com wrote: What is confusing about: Alpha-1, Alpha-2 ... Alpha-N Beta-1 Beta-2 Beta-N RC-1, RC-2 ... RC-N Released. Why on earth do we need a 'candidate' for a release candidate, or an alpha or beta candidate. We have ordinal numbers on them ... so just use them. .. if RC1 is lacking - fine - we'll move to RC2 ... etc. That would work - though it needs a clear criterion for deciding when Alpha-N should become Beta-1 ? Similar for the other transition from Beta to RC. I guess it is easier to decide when enough blockers are resolved to go from RC to GA. -- mike c -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
[perl-Test-CPAN-Meta-YAML] Created tag perl-Test-CPAN-Meta-YAML-0.17-2.el4
The lightweight tag 'perl-Test-CPAN-Meta-YAML-0.17-2.el4' was created pointing to: 505e29d... Initial import of perl-Test-CPAN-Meta-YAML-0.17-2 -- 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-Test-CPAN-Meta-YAML] Created tag perl-Test-CPAN-Meta-YAML-0.17-2.el5
The lightweight tag 'perl-Test-CPAN-Meta-YAML-0.17-2.el5' was created pointing to: 505e29d... Initial import of perl-Test-CPAN-Meta-YAML-0.17-2 -- 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
Re: [Test-Announce] Fedora 15 Beta RC1 Available Now!
On 04/08/2011 02:19 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:
On 4/8/11 12:14 PM, Christopher Aillon wrote:
Its the way we do it.
F13 is the earliest mention I can find mention of Beta RC on
devel-list. But that doesn't really change the validity of my
statement. It's confusing, and we should change it.
This is fair criticism. I believe I'm the one that started referring to
these composes as release candidates more vocally. We needed a way to
reference the succession of attempted composes for a release point, be
it Alpha, Beta, or GA. Calling them release candidates made sense to
me, however I can see how they could be confusing.
Would it make more sense to refer to these as Alpha Candidate, Beta
Candidate and Release Candidate ? ac{1,2,3}, bc{1,2}, rc1 ?
It does mean the name will change at each stage, but it should be more
descriptive as to what stage we're in.
Thoughts?
I like this as well. Seems clear, and then when the candidate
'graduates' it just becomes 'Alpha', 'Beta' release Seems clear to me.
--
Nathanael d. Noblet
t 403.875.4613
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: [Test-Announce] Fedora 15 Beta RC1 Available Now!
On Fri, 2011-04-08 at 16:37 -0400, Genes MailLists wrote: Why on earth do we need a 'candidate' for a release candidate, or an alpha or beta candidate. We have ordinal numbers on them ... so just use them. .. if RC1 is lacking - fine - we'll move to RC2 ... etc. My opinion of course :-) The actual pre-releases - Alpha, Beta - get distributed and promoted far and wide; they're required to meet certain quality standards to ensure they don't provide a really bad impression of the project and to make sure they actually provide for useful testing and feedback from 'normal' testers. The candidate builds get distributed and promoted in a very restricted way (they live on one server and are announced on the test and desktop mailing lists) and exist so that we can do testing to make sure they meet the standards expected of a 'public' release. Your scheme doesn't preserve the distinction between these different types of builds. To put it bluntly - especially with TCs, when we spin them we don't know for sure if they even work. We've had more than one TC build (even RC build) that was effectively DOA. Hell, on the Beta RC1 we span yesterday, anaconda cannot be run from any live image; that's not something we want to be putting out as a 'public' release, even a pre-release. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: [Test-Announce] Fedora 15 Beta RC1 Available Now!
I wasn't aware of the distinction between the candidates and the naming of the files downloaded didn't help, so I think some clarification might be worthwhile. By downloading a couple of TCs I came across this problem: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=694915 -Cam On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 10:14 PM, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote: On Fri, 2011-04-08 at 16:37 -0400, Genes MailLists wrote: Why on earth do we need a 'candidate' for a release candidate, or an alpha or beta candidate. We have ordinal numbers on them ... so just use them. .. if RC1 is lacking - fine - we'll move to RC2 ... etc. My opinion of course :-) The actual pre-releases - Alpha, Beta - get distributed and promoted far and wide; they're required to meet certain quality standards to ensure they don't provide a really bad impression of the project and to make sure they actually provide for useful testing and feedback from 'normal' testers. The candidate builds get distributed and promoted in a very restricted way (they live on one server and are announced on the test and desktop mailing lists) and exist so that we can do testing to make sure they meet the standards expected of a 'public' release. Your scheme doesn't preserve the distinction between these different types of builds. To put it bluntly - especially with TCs, when we spin them we don't know for sure if they even work. We've had more than one TC build (even RC build) that was effectively DOA. Hell, on the Beta RC1 we span yesterday, anaconda cannot be run from any live image; that's not something we want to be putting out as a 'public' release, even a pre-release. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net -- 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
Re: [Test-Announce] Fedora 15 Beta RC1 Available Now!
On 04/08/2011 05:14 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: On Fri, 2011-04-08 at 16:37 -0400, Genes MailLists wrote: The actual pre-releases - Alpha, Beta - get distributed and promoted far and wide; they're required to meet certain quality standards to ensure Your scheme doesn't preserve the distinction between these different types of builds. To put it bluntly - especially with TCs, when we spin them we don't know ... You're absolutely right ... :-) - lack of thinking on my part Your scheme does indeed have that, as does: Builds Release --- --- Alpha-0.1, Alpha-0.2 ... Alpha-0.9 = Alpha-1 Alpha-1.1 ... Alpha-1.13 = Alpha-2 Similarly for Beta, and RC .. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Self Introduction
On 04/08/2011 12:30 PM, Justin Noah wrote: Hello! My name is Justin, I go by brutal_chaos on IRC, don't be shy say hi. I come to you in hopes of becoming a (good) package maintainer for Fedora. I am starting off by packaging a new python package, python-construct, and I am looking for sponsorship. Below is the link to my first package's review request. Please, have a look, let me know what you think! Review Request URIL: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=694718 Welcome to Fedora. Kevin Fenzi has sponsored you (https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/579) and I have agreed to be a mentor approved your request to be a co-maintainer for Deluge. You applied only in Fedora 14 branch. Make sure you apply for Fedora 15 and devel as well. Removing need sponsor from the review request.Let me know (offlist or on irc) if you have any questions. Rahul -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: [Test-Announce] Fedora 15 Beta RC1 Available Now!
On Fri, 2011-04-08 at 17:26 -0400, Genes MailLists wrote: You're absolutely right ... :-) - lack of thinking on my part Your scheme does indeed have that, as does: Builds Release --- --- Alpha-0.1, Alpha-0.2 ... Alpha-0.9 = Alpha-1 Alpha-1.1 ... Alpha-1.13 = Alpha-2 Similarly for Beta, and RC .. We don't have numbered Alpha and Beta releases (we don't do Alpha 1, Alpha 2 etc - we just do Alpha and Beta). We also don't do an 'RC' release: we have release candidates for the final (GA) release. Alpha-0.1, Alpha-0.2, Alpha Beta-0.1, Beta-0.2, Beta RC1, RC2, Final would work, but I dunno, I like Jesse's scheme, it's less of a change. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: [Test-Announce] Fedora 15 Beta RC1 Available Now!
On 04/08/2011 01:19 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:
Would it make more sense to refer to these as Alpha Candidate, Beta
Candidate and Release Candidate ? ac{1,2,3}, bc{1,2}, rc1 ?
WFM!
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
[Test-Announce] Fedora 15 Beta RC2 Available Now!
As per the Fedora 15 schedule [1], Fedora 15 Beta RC2 is now available for testing. Please see the following pages for download links and testing instructions. Installation: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Current_Installation_Test Desktop: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Current_Desktop_Test Ideally, all Alpha and Beta priority test cases for installation [2] and desktop [3] should pass in order to meet the Beta Release Criteria [4]. Help is available on #fedora-qa on irc.freenode.net [5], or on the test list [6]. F15 Beta Blocker tracker bug: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=657618 F15 Beta Nice-To-Have tracker bug: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=657619 [1] http://rbergero.fedorapeople.org/schedules/f-15/f-15-quality-tasks.html [2] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Installation_validation_testing [3] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Desktop_validation_testing [4] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_15_Beta_Release_Criteria [5] irc://irc.freenode.net/fedora-qa [6] https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ 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
critpath approval process seems rather broken
For the past several days I've been getting daily nagmails about the fact that libtiff hasn't been pushed into f13 (example attached). Because it's a critpath package, I as the lowly maintainer do not have privileges to push it stable, not even after two weeks. Those who do have privileges to approve this sort of thing evidently are paying no attention to f13 packages, not even security bugs on critpath packages. I will refrain from ranting, and just point out that something is pretty darn broken about this process. Why are the nagmails going to someone with no power to fix the problem? Shouldn't somebody with approval power be paying more than zero attention to older branches? regards, tom lane --- Forwarded Message Date:Sat, 09 Apr 2011 00:00:43 + From:upda...@fedoraproject.org To: t...@redhat.com Subject: [Fedora Update] [CRITPATH] [old_testing_critpath] libtiff-3.9.4-4.fc13 The critical path update for libtiff-3.9.4-4.fc13 has been in 'testing' status for over 2 weeks, and has yet to be approved. libtiff-3.9.4-4.fc13 Update ID: FEDORA-2011-3827 Release: Fedora 13 Status: testing Type: security Karma: 0 Bugs: 684939 - CVE-2011-1167 libtiff: heap-based buffer overflow in : thunder decoder (ZDI-11-107) : 684007 - libtiff fails to decode some G4 images : correctly : 678635 - CVE-2011-0192 libtiff: buffer overflow in : Fax4Decode Notes: Fix incorrect fix for CVE-2011-0192Add fix for CVE-2011-1167 : Fix buffer overrun in fax decoding (CVE-2011-0192) as : well as a non-security-critical crash in gif2tiff. Submitter: tgl Submitted: 2011-03-21 20:38:28 Comments: bodhi - 2011-03-21 20:38:42 (karma 0) This update has been submitted for testing by tgl. bodhi - 2011-03-22 18:53:10 (karma 0) This update has been pushed to testing https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/libtiff-3.9.4-4.fc13 --- End of Forwarded Message -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: critpath approval process seems rather broken
On Fri, 2011-04-08 at 20:27 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: I will refrain from ranting, and just point out that something is pretty darn broken about this process. Why are the nagmails going to someone with no power to fix the problem? Shouldn't somebody with approval power be paying more than zero attention to older branches? They *are* paying attention. Testers get the same nagmails you do. In fact, there's plenty of approvers available, but you're not engaging with them. They might not know how to test libtiff, or what needs testing, so other stuff gets tested first. The solution is simple: ASK FOR HELP. Pop into #fedora-qa or ask on the test list. Give some details about what needs to be tested (and how to test it) and it'll be sorted out very quickly. Updates get approved much faster when the maintainer bothers to engage with the testers. This should surprise no one. Fedora is made of people, isn't it? The only thing broken here is the expectation that testing doesn't require your assistance, or isn't your problem. -w -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: critpath approval process seems rather broken
On Fri, 2011-04-08 at 20:43 -0400, Will Woods wrote: The only thing broken here is the expectation that testing doesn't require your assistance, or isn't your problem. Well, F13 does tend to get pretty backed up; few people are running it any more. I boot a virt instance of it and do a fedora-easy-karma run every so often, but that's only every month or so, and I can't upkarma *every* update because some I don't have an appropriate setup to test (though this one I would do next time I get to doing an F13 run). I think we've kicked around a few ideas for dealing with this problem with the 'current minus one' release, but nothing definite has come of it yet. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: critpath approval process seems rather broken
On Fri, Apr 08, 2011 at 20:43:05 -0400, Will Woods wwo...@redhat.com wrote: The only thing broken here is the expectation that testing doesn't require your assistance, or isn't your problem. Except this affects more than Tom. Some people aren't getting updates because of the misunderstanding and/or lack of resources that prevented this update from going out in a timely manner. This isn't the first time this kind of thing has been reported, particularly with a near end of life release. I know there is stuff going on to develop test plans and the like, but it still is probably worth asking questions about how we could do things better. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: critpath approval process seems rather broken
Will Woods wrote: In fact, there's plenty of approvers available, but you're not engaging with them. They might not know how to test libtiff, or what needs testing, so other stuff gets tested first. The fact is, this is a SECURITY UPDATE and as such it should go out even without testing. It's not acceptable to sit on security updates for weeks. And it's just a FACT that Fedora n-1 gets near-zero testing. The solution is simple: ASK FOR HELP. The solution is simple: The red tape on update pushing needs to be repealed. Kevin Kofler -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: critpath approval process seems rather broken
Related to this, fesco wanted to look at some changes for security updates for stable releases: https://fedorahosted.org/bodhi/ticket/581 Hopefully something like this would help the above case. kevin signature.asc Description: PGP signature -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
shouldn't download directory for install images be called Install instead of Fedora?
Currently the download directories for install and live images are called Fedora and Live, resp. Shouldn't the former be Install instead? After all, everything in both directories is Fedora's, so calling one of them Fedora doesn't appear helpful. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
[perl-SOAP-Lite] BuildArch: noarch, rhbz#694559
commit 04bf13520c7870982511bd6696504c7ebd0c2d8f
Author: Petr Sabata psab...@redhat.com
Date: Fri Apr 8 10:16:50 2011 +0200
BuildArch: noarch, rhbz#694559
perl-SOAP-Lite.spec |8 ++--
1 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
---
diff --git a/perl-SOAP-Lite.spec b/perl-SOAP-Lite.spec
index 9eed3a6..d9a200d 100644
--- a/perl-SOAP-Lite.spec
+++ b/perl-SOAP-Lite.spec
@@ -1,13 +1,13 @@
Name: perl-SOAP-Lite
Version:0.712
-Release:2%{?dist}
+Release:3%{?dist}
Summary:Client and server side SOAP implementation
License:GPL+ or Artistic
Group: Development/Libraries
URL:http://search.cpan.org/dist/SOAP-Lite/
Source0:
http://search.cpan.org/CPAN/authors/id/M/MK/MKUTTER/SOAP-Lite-%{version}.tar.gz
+BuildArch: noarch
-Requires: perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_%(eval `%{__perl} -V:version`; echo
$version))
# Core package
BuildRequires: perl(Class::Inspector)
BuildRequires: perl(constant)
@@ -30,6 +30,7 @@ BuildRequires: perl(IO::File)
BuildRequires: perl(IO::Socket::SSL)
BuildRequires: perl(Compress::Zlib)
+Requires: perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_%(eval `%{__perl} -V:version`; echo
$version))
Requires: perl(Apache2::Const)
Requires: perl(Apache2::RequestIO)
Requires: perl(Apache2::RequestRec)
@@ -91,6 +92,9 @@ make test
%{_mandir}/man1/*
%changelog
+* Fri Apr 8 2011 Petr Sabata psab...@redhat.com - 0.712-3
+- BuildArch: noarch
+
* Wed Apr 6 2011 Petr Sabata psab...@redhat.com - 0.712-2
- Fix Requires typos
--
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 694559] perl-SOAP-Lite-debuginfo 0.712-2 is empty
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=694559 Petr Sabata psab...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Fixed In Version||perl-SOAP-Lite-0.713-3.fc16 Resolution||RAWHIDE Last Closed||2011-04-08 04:22:53 --- Comment #1 from Petr Sabata psab...@redhat.com 2011-04-08 04:22:53 EDT --- This was accidental. 0.713-3 is now noarch again. -- 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
Broken dependencies: perl-Config-Model
perl-Config-Model has broken dependencies in the rawhide tree: On x86_64: perl-Config-Model-1.235-1.fc16.noarch requires perl(AptPkg::System) perl-Config-Model-1.235-1.fc16.noarch requires perl(AptPkg::Version) perl-Config-Model-1.235-1.fc16.noarch requires perl(YAML::Any) = 0:0.303 perl-Config-Model-1.235-1.fc16.noarch requires perl(Fuse) perl-Config-Model-1.235-1.fc16.noarch requires perl(AptPkg::Config) On i386: perl-Config-Model-1.235-1.fc16.noarch requires perl(AptPkg::System) perl-Config-Model-1.235-1.fc16.noarch requires perl(AptPkg::Version) perl-Config-Model-1.235-1.fc16.noarch requires perl(YAML::Any) = 0:0.303 perl-Config-Model-1.235-1.fc16.noarch requires perl(Fuse) perl-Config-Model-1.235-1.fc16.noarch requires perl(AptPkg::Config) Please resolve this as soon as possible. -- 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-Coro] Fix handling of Requires from last commit.
commit 043a26eb42b0b156d2ae9205ddf487c52c8dff84
Author: Mathieu Bridon boche...@fedoraproject.org
Date: Fri Apr 8 17:50:04 2011 +0800
Fix handling of Requires from last commit.
The Requires: on perl(EV) is added automatically, but it is not
versionned.
This commit filters the unversionned Requires: out and adds an
explicit, versionned one instead.
perl-Coro.spec |8 +++-
1 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
---
diff --git a/perl-Coro.spec b/perl-Coro.spec
index 319951a..9f67fa4 100644
--- a/perl-Coro.spec
+++ b/perl-Coro.spec
@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
Name: perl-Coro
Version:5.372
-Release:2%{?dist}
+Release:3%{?dist}
Summary:The only real threads in perl
License:GPL+ or Artistic
Group: Development/Libraries
@@ -27,6 +27,7 @@ Requires: perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_%(eval `%{__perl}
-V:version`; echo $versi
Requires: perl(AnyEvent) = 5
Requires: perl(AnyEvent::AIO) = 1
Requires: perl(AnyEvent::BDB) = 1
+Requires: perl(EV) = 3
Requires: perl(Event) = 1.08
Requires: perl(Guard) = 0.5
Requires: perl(Storable) = 2.15
@@ -36,6 +37,7 @@ Requires: perl(Storable) = 2.15
%filter_from_requires /^perl(AnyEvent) = 4.81$/d
%filter_from_requires /^perl(AnyEvent::AIO)$/d
%filter_from_requires /^perl(AnyEvent::BDB)$/d
+%filter_from_requires /^perl(EV)$/d
%filter_from_requires /^perl(Event)$/d
%filter_from_requires /^perl(Guard)$/d
%filter_from_requires /^perl(Storable)$/d
@@ -94,6 +96,10 @@ make test
%{_mandir}/man3/*
%changelog
+* Fri Apr 08 2011 Mathieu Bridon boche...@fedoraproject.org - 5.372-3
+- Added explicit versionned Requires: on perl(EV)
+- Removed automatically added unversionned Requires: on perl(EV)
+
* Thu Apr 07 2011 Mathieu Bridon boche...@fedoraproject.org - 5.372-2
- Rebuild with EV support.
--
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-version] Unexport version::vxs
commit 86ec72368565a3abb22afb7ef1e15eff171fda51
Author: Petr Písař ppi...@redhat.com
Date: Fri Apr 8 12:24:04 2011 +0200
Unexport version::vxs
perl-version.spec | 19 +--
1 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
---
diff --git a/perl-version.spec b/perl-version.spec
index 70c3225..9478154 100644
--- a/perl-version.spec
+++ b/perl-version.spec
@@ -1,17 +1,20 @@
Name: perl-version
Epoch: 3
Version:0.88
-Release:2%{?dist}
+Release:3%{?dist}
Summary:Perl extension for Version Objects
License:GPL+ or Artistic
Group: Development/Libraries
URL:http://search.cpan.org/dist/version/
Source0:
http://www.cpan.org/authors/id/J/JP/JPEACOCK/version-%{version}.tar.gz
-BuildRoot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
BuildRequires: perl(Module::Build)
BuildRequires: perl(Test::More) = 0.45
Requires: perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_%(eval `%{__perl} -V:version`; echo
$version))
+# version::vxs is private module (see bug #633775)
+%filter_from_provides /^perl(version::vxs)/d
+%{perl_default_filter}
+
%description
Version objects were added to Perl in 5.10. This module implements version
objects for older version of Perl and provides the version object API for
@@ -20,8 +23,6 @@ should not be used due to incompatible API changes. Version
0.77 introduces
the new 'parse' and 'declare' methods to standardize usage. You are
strongly urged to set 0.77 as a minimum in your code.
-%{?perl_default_filter}
-
%prep
%setup -q -n version-%{version}
@@ -30,21 +31,15 @@ strongly urged to set 0.77 as a minimum in your code.
make %{?_smp_mflags}
%install
-rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
-
make pure_install DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT
find $RPM_BUILD_ROOT -type f -name .packlist -exec rm -f {} \;
find $RPM_BUILD_ROOT -type f -name '*.bs' -size 0 -exec rm -f {} \;
find $RPM_BUILD_ROOT -depth -type d -exec rmdir {} \; 2/dev/null
-
%{_fixperms} $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/*
%check
make test
-%clean
-rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
-
%files
%defattr(-,root,root,-)
%doc Changes README
@@ -58,6 +53,10 @@ rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
%{_mandir}/man3/version::Internals.3pm*
%changelog
+* Fri Apr 08 2011 Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com - 3:0.88-3
+- Unexport private version::vxs module (bug #633775)
+- Remove BuildRoot stuff
+
* Wed Feb 09 2011 Fedora Release Engineering rel-...@lists.fedoraproject.org
- 3:0.88-2
- Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_15_Mass_Rebuild
--
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-version/f15/master] Unexport version::vxs
Summary of changes: 86ec723... Unexport version::vxs (*) (*) 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-version] Revert mandatory of perl_default_filter
commit 51fdecae359e308d3b3e2f68e0261b6932553b9e
Author: Petr Písař ppi...@redhat.com
Date: Fri Apr 8 13:19:11 2011 +0200
Revert mandatory of perl_default_filter
%{?perl_default_filter} is the only notation that does not bite SPEC
parser in koji. (???)
perl-version.spec |3 ++-
1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
---
diff --git a/perl-version.spec b/perl-version.spec
index 9478154..67e7fcb 100644
--- a/perl-version.spec
+++ b/perl-version.spec
@@ -13,7 +13,8 @@ Requires: perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_%(eval `%{__perl}
-V:version`; echo $versi
# version::vxs is private module (see bug #633775)
%filter_from_provides /^perl(version::vxs)/d
-%{perl_default_filter}
+%filter_setup
+%{?perl_default_filter}
%description
Version objects were added to Perl in 5.10. This module implements version
--
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-version/f15/master] Revert mandatory of perl_default_filter
Summary of changes: 51fdeca... Revert mandatory of perl_default_filter (*) (*) 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-version/f14/master] Unexport version::vxs
commit ca600c9cdf06de700433a195b6aa5d1f135cda09
Author: Petr Písař ppi...@redhat.com
Date: Fri Apr 8 12:24:04 2011 +0200
Unexport version::vxs
perl-version.spec | 14 ++
1 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
---
diff --git a/perl-version.spec b/perl-version.spec
index 378c492..131bbf4 100644
--- a/perl-version.spec
+++ b/perl-version.spec
@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
Name: perl-version
Epoch: 3
Version:0.88
-Release:1%{?dist}
+Release:2%{?dist}
Summary:Perl extension for Version Objects
License:GPL+ or Artistic
Group: Development/Libraries
@@ -11,6 +11,11 @@ BuildRequires: perl(Module::Build)
BuildRequires: perl(Test::More) = 0.45
Requires: perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_%(eval `%{__perl} -V:version`; echo
$version))
+# version::vxs is private module (see bug #633775)
+%filter_from_provides /^perl(version::vxs)/d
+%filter_setup
+%{?perl_default_filter}
+
%description
Version objects were added to Perl in 5.10. This module implements version
objects for older version of Perl and provides the version object API for
@@ -19,8 +24,6 @@ should not be used due to incompatible API changes. Version
0.77 introduces
the new 'parse' and 'declare' methods to standardize usage. You are
strongly urged to set 0.77 as a minimum in your code.
-%{?perl_default_filter}
-
%prep
%setup -q -n version-%{version}
@@ -33,7 +36,6 @@ make pure_install DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT
find $RPM_BUILD_ROOT -type f -name .packlist -exec rm -f {} \;
find $RPM_BUILD_ROOT -type f -name '*.bs' -size 0 -exec rm -f {} \;
find $RPM_BUILD_ROOT -depth -type d -exec rmdir {} \; 2/dev/null
-
%{_fixperms} $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/*
%check
@@ -52,6 +54,10 @@ make test
%{_mandir}/man3/version::Internals.3pm*
%changelog
+* Fri Apr 08 2011 Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com - 3:0.88-2
+- Unexport private version::vxs module (bug #633775)
+- Remove BuildRoot stuff
+
* Wed Jan 26 2011 Paul Howarth p...@city-fan.org 3:0.88-1
- Update to 0.88
- Revert to Makefile.PL flow as upstream dropped Build.PL to avoid circular
--
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-version/f13/master] Unexport version::vxs
commit a4503822f53f3df0cb7294bd1381a4a316382719
Author: Petr Písař ppi...@redhat.com
Date: Fri Apr 8 12:24:04 2011 +0200
Unexport version::vxs
perl-version.spec | 23 +--
1 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
---
diff --git a/perl-version.spec b/perl-version.spec
index 6de2c16..8ebb36f 100644
--- a/perl-version.spec
+++ b/perl-version.spec
@@ -1,24 +1,28 @@
Name: perl-version
Epoch: 3
Version:0.82
-Release:1%{?dist}
+Release:2%{?dist}
Summary:Perl extension for Version Objects
License:GPL+ or Artistic
Group: Development/Libraries
URL:http://search.cpan.org/dist/version/
Source0:
http://www.cpan.org/authors/id/J/JP/JPEACOCK/version-%{version}.tar.gz
-BuildRoot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
BuildRequires: perl(Module::Build)
BuildRequires: perl(Test::More) = 0.45
Requires: perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_%(eval `%{__perl} -V:version`; echo
$version))
+# version::vxs is private module (see bug #633775)
+%filter_from_provides /^perl(version::vxs)/d
+%filter_setup
+%{?perl_default_filter}
+
%description
Version objects were added to Perl in 5.10. This module implements version
objects for older version of Perl and provides the version object API for
all versions of Perl. All previous releases before 0.74 are deprecated and
should not be used due to incompatible API changes. Version 0.77 introduces
the new 'parse' and 'declare' methods to standardize usage. You are
-strongly urged to set 0.77 as a minimum in your code, e.g.
+strongly urged to set 0.77 as a minimum in your code.
%prep
%setup -q -n version-%{version}
@@ -29,20 +33,14 @@ strongly urged to set 0.77 as a minimum in your code, e.g.
./Build
%install
-rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
-
./Build install destdir=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT create_packlist=0
find $RPM_BUILD_ROOT -type f -name '*.bs' -size 0 -exec rm -f {} \;
-find $RPM_BUILD_ROOT -depth -type d -exec rmdir {} 2/dev/null \;
-
+find $RPM_BUILD_ROOT -depth -type d -exec rmdir {} \; 2/dev/null
%{_fixperms} $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/*
%check
./Build test
-%clean
-rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
-
%files
%defattr(-,root,root,-)
%doc Changes README
@@ -51,5 +49,10 @@ rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
%{_mandir}/man3/*
%changelog
+* Fri Apr 08 2011 Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com - 3:0.82-2
+- Unexport private version::vxs module (bug #633775)
+- Remove BuildRoot stuff
+- Correct description text
+
* Tue Mar 09 2010 Marcela Mašláňová mmasl...@redhat.com 0.82-1
- Specfile autogenerated by cpanspec 1.78.
--
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
