Re: Provenpackager help needed to complete libpng/libtiff transition
On Wed, 2012-08-01 at 01:53 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: There are still about half a dozen packages left that failed the recent mass rebuild because they contain source-code dependencies on obsolete versions of libpng and/or libtiff. I've filed patches to fix them, but don't have permissions to do it myself. If any provenpackagers have a bit of time to spare, could I pester you to look at these bugs? Pixie 843294 dcmtk 819236 fuse-emulator 843645 grace 843647 gshutdown 843648 luakit843652 pngnq 843655 tucnak2 843658 I'll take care of some of these tomorrow, if no-one else beats me to it. Thanks for doing the patches! Have you tried to upstream them, or are the upstreams for these dead? -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora http://www.happyassassin.net -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
redhat-lsb-desktop versus transition to current libpng
I have been working for the better part of a year on moving Fedora off
of libpng's obsolete 1.2.x release series and onto the current 1.5.x
series. We are practically there now, and I had hoped to drop libpng
1.2 from the distribution before the F18 branch. However, I find that
redhat-lsb-desktop still has a dependency on 1.2, and it's not even
because that package contains any PNG-using code; rather, there's a
manually inserted version-specific dependency in the specfile:
%ifarch %{ix86}
Requires: libpng12.so.0
%endif
%ifarch x86_64
Requires: libpng12.so.0()(64bit)
%endif
This is unlike that specfile's treatment of any other library
it requires. I have been told, at
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=835777#c8
that the LSB standard requires libpng 1.2, but without any supporting
evidence. I looked at the underlying ISO documents and don't see any
requirement for libpng at all, let alone 1.2 in particular. I am
doubtful that every other Linux distro is maintaining this long-obsolete
libpng version, too.
I would like to know how to proceed here. You should keep libpng 1.2
around indefinitely, on the basis of no evidence is not an answer
I intend to accept.
regards, tom lane
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Provenpackager help needed to complete libpng/libtiff transition
Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com writes: On Wed, 2012-08-01 at 01:53 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: There are still about half a dozen packages left that failed the recent mass rebuild because they contain source-code dependencies on obsolete versions of libpng and/or libtiff. I've filed patches to fix them, but don't have permissions to do it myself. If any provenpackagers have a bit of time to spare, could I pester you to look at these bugs? Thanks for doing the patches! Have you tried to upstream them, or are the upstreams for these dead? I have not; I supposed that the respective package maintainers would be in a better position than me to pester their upstreams. These bugs are the ones that I've not gotten a response on from the maintainer, so perhaps the correct question to be asking is whether the Fedora maintainer is asleep at the wheel ... regards, tom lane -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: redhat-lsb-desktop versus transition to current libpng
On Wed, 2012-08-01 at 02:17 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
I have been working for the better part of a year on moving Fedora off
of libpng's obsolete 1.2.x release series and onto the current 1.5.x
series. We are practically there now, and I had hoped to drop libpng
1.2 from the distribution before the F18 branch. However, I find that
redhat-lsb-desktop still has a dependency on 1.2, and it's not even
because that package contains any PNG-using code; rather, there's a
manually inserted version-specific dependency in the specfile:
%ifarch %{ix86}
Requires: libpng12.so.0
%endif
%ifarch x86_64
Requires: libpng12.so.0()(64bit)
%endif
This is unlike that specfile's treatment of any other library
it requires. I have been told, at
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=835777#c8
that the LSB standard requires libpng 1.2, but without any supporting
evidence. I looked at the underlying ISO documents and don't see any
requirement for libpng at all, let alone 1.2 in particular. I am
doubtful that every other Linux distro is maintaining this long-obsolete
libpng version, too.
I would like to know how to proceed here. You should keep libpng 1.2
around indefinitely, on the basis of no evidence is not an answer
I intend to accept.
A very quick search returns this:
http://refspecs.linuxbase.org/LSB_4.1.0/LSB-Desktop-generic/LSB-Desktop-generic/libpng.html
in the 'desktop' section of LSB 4.1. I'm looking at it more closely now.
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora
http://www.happyassassin.net
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: redhat-lsb-desktop versus transition to current libpng
On Wed, 2012-08-01 at 00:21 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Wed, 2012-08-01 at 02:17 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
I have been working for the better part of a year on moving Fedora off
of libpng's obsolete 1.2.x release series and onto the current 1.5.x
series. We are practically there now, and I had hoped to drop libpng
1.2 from the distribution before the F18 branch. However, I find that
redhat-lsb-desktop still has a dependency on 1.2, and it's not even
because that package contains any PNG-using code; rather, there's a
manually inserted version-specific dependency in the specfile:
%ifarch %{ix86}
Requires: libpng12.so.0
%endif
%ifarch x86_64
Requires: libpng12.so.0()(64bit)
%endif
This is unlike that specfile's treatment of any other library
it requires. I have been told, at
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=835777#c8
that the LSB standard requires libpng 1.2, but without any supporting
evidence. I looked at the underlying ISO documents and don't see any
requirement for libpng at all, let alone 1.2 in particular. I am
doubtful that every other Linux distro is maintaining this long-obsolete
libpng version, too.
I would like to know how to proceed here. You should keep libpng 1.2
around indefinitely, on the basis of no evidence is not an answer
I intend to accept.
A very quick search returns this:
http://refspecs.linuxbase.org/LSB_4.1.0/LSB-Desktop-generic/LSB-Desktop-generic/libpng.html
in the 'desktop' section of LSB 4.1. I'm looking at it more closely now.
Well, that's really it. The format of LSB is a bit odd to a lay reader,
but AFAICT, it really does mean: to be technically in compliance with
LSB-desktop, you need to ship a libpng12.so.0 which provides the listed
functions. End of story. I don't see a workaround.
See
http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lsb-infrastructure/2012-June/004006.html
for e.g., for confirmation that it does mean what it seems to mean - that
seems like a 'real world' (and relatively recent) case where someone says, yup,
you need to ship a library called libpng12.so.0 with the right symbols in it.
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora
http://www.happyassassin.net
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: [ACTION REQUIRED] [FINAL NOTICE] Retiring packages for F-18
- Original Message - Before we branch for Fedora 18, as is custom, we will block currently orphaned packages and packages that have failed to build since Fedora 16. The following packages are currently orphaned, or fail to build. If you have a need for one of these packages, please pick them up. If no one claims any of these packages, they will be blocked before we branch for Fedora 18. We will block these packages on Monday, August 06. Note that if you're receiving this mail directly, it's because you are a co-maintainer of one of these packages. Please work with your comaintainers to take up maintenance. Package libqttracker (fails to build) comaintained by: jreznik I'm inclined to let it die but I'll take a look. It's leftover after unsuccessful MeeGo packaging efforts. R. The script that generated this page can be found at https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/browser/scripts/find-unblocked-orphans.py There you can also report bugs and RFEs. -- Jaroslav Řezník jrez...@redhat.com Engineering Program Manager Office: +420 532 294 275 Mobile: +420 602 797 774 Red Hat, Inc. http://www.redhat.com/ -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: redhat-lsb-desktop versus transition to current libpng
On 08/01/2012 01:06 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: Well, that's really it. The format of LSB is a bit odd to a lay reader, but AFAICT, it really does mean: to be technically in compliance with LSB-desktop, you need to ship a libpng12.so.0 which provides the listed functions. End of story. I don't see a workaround. Fedora is not LSB compatible. Is it? Why do we even care about this at all? Rahul -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
[Bug 782599] RFE: Upgrade perl-CGI-Session
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=782599 --- Comment #1 from hkoba buribul...@gmail.com --- Created attachment 601701 -- https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=601701action=edit Minimum patch to avoid qw warnings If you do not have enough time to test newer CGI::Session, please apply this patch as a minimum work around. Please! -- 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: [ACTION REQUIRED] [FINAL NOTICE] Retiring packages for F-18
On 07/31/2012 10:41 PM, Bill Nottingham wrote: Removing: libgtkhotkey synapse requires libgtkhotkey.so.1 CC'ing Michel Alexandre Salim, synapse maintainer Ideally the synapse maintainer should own this as well but since I use synapse, I am going to take ownership of this for now to rescue synapse from being removed. Michel, if you want to maintain it, feel free to ask. Rahul -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: [ACTION REQUIRED] [FINAL NOTICE] Retiring packages for F-18
- Original Message - - Original Message - Before we branch for Fedora 18, as is custom, we will block currently orphaned packages and packages that have failed to build since Fedora 16. The following packages are currently orphaned, or fail to build. If you have a need for one of these packages, please pick them up. If no one claims any of these packages, they will be blocked before we branch for Fedora 18. We will block these packages on Monday, August 06. Note that if you're receiving this mail directly, it's because you are a co-maintainer of one of these packages. Please work with your comaintainers to take up maintenance. Package libqttracker (fails to build) comaintained by: jreznik I'm inclined to let it die but I'll take a look. It's leftover after unsuccessful MeeGo packaging efforts. Let it die in Fedora too - upstream is dead. It was part of Maemo 6, and as Nokia killed it, nobody is working anymore on it. It's needed for Qt Mobility but only on Maemo 6/MeeGo platform. No dependencies in Fedora. R. R. The script that generated this page can be found at https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/browser/scripts/find-unblocked-orphans.py There you can also report bugs and RFEs. -- Jaroslav Řezník jrez...@redhat.com Engineering Program Manager Office: +420 532 294 275 Mobile: +420 602 797 774 Red Hat, Inc. http://www.redhat.com/ -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: [ACTION REQUIRED] [FINAL NOTICE] Retiring packages for F-18
Bill Nottingham wrote, at 08/01/2012 02:11 AM +9:00: Before we branch for Fedora 18, as is custom, we will block currently orphaned packages and packages that have failed to build since Fedora 16. The following packages are currently orphaned, or fail to build. If you have a need for one of these packages, please pick them up. If no one claims any of these packages, they will be blocked before we branch for Fedora 18. We will block these packages on Monday, August 06. Note that if you're receiving this mail directly, it's because you are a co-maintainer of one of these packages. Please work with your comaintainers to take up maintenance. Package ragel (fails to build) Package xaos (fails to build) Package xdrawchem (fails to build) Fixed these. Regards, Mamoru -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: redhat-lsb-desktop versus transition to current libpng
On 1 August 2012 10:47, Rahul Sundaram methe...@gmail.com wrote: Fedora is not LSB compatible. Is it? Why do we even care about this at all? I think I can speak for most of the core GNOME desktop developers and state that we don't care about LSB one little bit. Richard. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: [ACTION REQUIRED] [FINAL NOTICE] Retiring packages for F-18
Le 31/07/2012 19:11, Bill Nottingham a écrit : Package libgtksourceviewmm (fails to build) retired, since nobody claimed it. Package nvi (orphan) Package torque (orphan) Both taken and co-maintainers are very welcome ! best regards, H. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: redhat-lsb-desktop versus transition to current libpng
On 8/1/12 5:47 AM, Rahul Sundaram wrote: On 08/01/2012 01:06 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: Well, that's really it. The format of LSB is a bit odd to a lay reader, but AFAICT, it really does mean: to be technically in compliance with LSB-desktop, you need to ship a libpng12.so.0 which provides the listed functions. End of story. I don't see a workaround. Fedora is not LSB compatible. Is it? Why do we even care about this at all? It is if you install redhat-lsb. The only intrinsic reason to care about LSB support is binary compatibility; Fedora broadly doesn't, but that doesn't mean it's not a useful end. Personally I've definitely had occasion to need older builds of things like boost and openssl on newer Fedora releases. repoquery is also telling me there are things in Fedora that _do_ require redhat-lsb, at least in F16. I can't speak to the particulars there, you'd need to look into that per-package. - ajax -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: redhat-lsb-desktop versus transition to current libpng
Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com writes: On Wed, 2012-08-01 at 00:21 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: A very quick search returns this: http://refspecs.linuxbase.org/LSB_4.1.0/LSB-Desktop-generic/LSB-Desktop-generic/libpng.html Thanks. The links I was given previously didn't lead me to that. Well, that's really it. The format of LSB is a bit odd to a lay reader, but AFAICT, it really does mean: to be technically in compliance with LSB-desktop, you need to ship a libpng12.so.0 which provides the listed functions. End of story. I don't see a workaround. Yeah, looks like it. (I think redhat-lsb.spec is pretty broken in that it onlu appears to be trying to force a particular soname version for libpng, when the spec clearly demands a particular version for each of these libraries. But that's not very relevant right now.) What this means, IMO, is that we need to split out libpng12 as a separate package. The current hack that I'm using (bundling 1.2 and 1.5 into a single SRPM) was never meant to be more than a very short-term stopgap; I'm sure it violates all sorts of packaging guidelines. Is there any way we can fast-track that? I see little value in going through the normal package review pushups, when this is absolutely nothing except a backwards-compatibility package --- it ought to be exactly like the F16 libpng package. And I'd like to get it done before the F18 branch. regards, tom lane -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Summary/Minutes from today's FESCo Meeting (2012-07-23)
Adam Williamson wrote: I'm not sure it makes sense to worry about which approach is best for the really commonly used core fonts in deciding, because whichever approach we take, clearly we'll wind up taking care to make sure those fonts look good. Of course – for somebody's idea of good. As we found out in another branch of this thread, people can disagree on which rendering method makes a font look good. Björn Persson -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: rawhide report: 20120801 changes
On 8/1/12 8:11 AM, Fedora Rawhide Report wrote: [spring] spring-88.0-2.fc18.x86_64 requires libGLEW.so.1.6()(64bit) [toped] toped-0.9.70.1-3.svn1794.fc17.i686 requires libGLEW.so.1.6 toped-0.9.70.1-3.svn1794.fc17.x86_64 requires libGLEW.so.1.6()(64bit) I kicked rebuilds for the libGLEW update, but these two failed. The errors appear to involve C++ being a travesty of a language, so I haven't investigated further. - ajax -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: [ACTION REQUIRED] [FINAL NOTICE] Retiring packages for F-18
On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 12:11 PM, Bill Nottingham nott...@redhat.com wrote: Before we branch for Fedora 18, as is custom, we will block currently orphaned packages and packages that have failed to build since Fedora 16. The following packages are currently orphaned, or fail to build. If you have a need for one of these packages, please pick them up. If no one claims any of these packages, they will be blocked before we branch for Fedora 18. We will block these packages on Monday, August 06. Note that if you're receiving this mail directly, it's because you are a co-maintainer of one of these packages. Please work with your comaintainers to take up maintenance. Package freenx-client (fails to build) Fixed. Package pngcrush (fails to build) Fixed. Package tritonus (orphan) Taken. -J -- http://cecinestpasunefromage.wordpress.com/ in your fear, seek only peace in your fear, seek only love -d. bowie -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: [ACTION REQUIRED] [FINAL NOTICE] Retiring packages for F-18
Bill Nottingham nott...@redhat.com writes: Before we branch for Fedora 18, as is custom, we will block currently orphaned packages and packages that have failed to build since Fedora 16. The following packages are currently orphaned, or fail to build. If you have a need for one of these packages, please pick them up. If no one claims any of these packages, they will be blocked before we branch for Fedora 18. We will block these packages on Monday, August 06. Note that if you're receiving this mail directly, it's because you are a co-maintainer of one of these packages. Please work with your comaintainers to take up maintenance. still there's no orphaned iptraf -- Nikola -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: [ACTION REQUIRED] [FINAL NOTICE] Retiring packages for F-18
On Ter, 2012-07-31 at 22:42 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote: I'm looking into these: Bill Nottingham wrote: Package komparator (fails to build) can't resolve this fail g++ -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I.. -I/usr/include/kde -I/usr/lib64/qt-3.3/include -I. -DQT_THREAD_SUPPORT -D_REENTRANT -O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions -fstack-protector --param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -m64 -mtune=generic -c -o kdatecombo.o kdatecombo.cpp g++ -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I.. -I/usr/include/kde -I/usr/lib64/qt-3.3/include -I. -DQT_THREAD_SUPPORT -D_REENTRANT -O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions -fstack-protector --param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -m64 -mtune=generic -c -o kfileitemext.o kfileitemext.cpp g++ -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I.. -I/usr/include/kde -I/usr/lib64/qt-3.3/include -I. -DQT_THREAD_SUPPORT -D_REENTRANT -O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions -fstack-protector --param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -m64 -mtune=generic -c -o klistviewitemdups.o klistviewitemdups.cpp g++ -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I.. -I/usr/include/kde -I/usr/lib64/qt-3.3/include -I. -DQT_THREAD_SUPPORT -D_REENTRANT -O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions -fstack-protector --param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -m64 -mtune=generic -c -o klistviewitemsingle.o klistviewitemsingle.cpp kdatecombo.cpp:17:26: fatal error: kdatecombo.moc: No such file or directory compilation terminated. make[2]: *** [kdatecombo.o] Error 1 Package krecipes (fails to build) Package qalculate-kde (fails to build) Package tesseract (fails to build) but since the build.log files are no longer available, I need to run new builds first, so it's going to take a while. :-( Are those build.log files really so large that they cannot be kept for longer? :-( It's so annoying to see those build failures and to have no idea why the builds failed. I also really dislike the way FTBFS are handled now. In the past, bugs were filed for the build failures and they were all tracked on a tracking bug in Bugzilla, so it was always possible to see what needed fixing, and it was possible for provenpackagers to work on that in a coordinated fashion. These days, we get surprised with the failures at the last moment when they have actually been happening for 2 or 3 releases (depending on whether they would have built on F16 had there been a mass rebuild there)! We really need to track those failures in Bugzilla again. Kevin Kofler -- Sérgio M. B. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Use AutoQA to track changes in provides and requires?
Just an idea I had and wanted to float it out to the group... I think it would be nice to get an informational (obviously, not a blocking type check) to get changes in the requires or provides of a package. It would be a hassle to check it manually but I hope it would be fairly easy to automate. I'm thinking the output would just be a simple log showing added or removed items and perhaps version/soversion changes. One instance it might has helped in is BZ#842181, although in this case only rawhide was affected so as far as I know there's no real mechanism to cancel the update. Thoughts? Richard -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Use AutoQA to track changes in provides and requires?
On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 10:05 AM, Richard Shaw hobbes1...@gmail.com wrote: Just an idea I had and wanted to float it out to the group... I think it would be nice to get an informational (obviously, not a blocking type check) to get changes in the requires or provides of a package. It would be a hassle to check it manually but I hope it would be fairly easy to automate. I'm thinking the output would just be a simple log showing added or removed items and perhaps version/soversion changes. One instance it might has helped in is BZ#842181, although in this case only rawhide was affected so as far as I know there's no real mechanism to cancel the update. You can untag the build if you catch it before the mash. . . -J Thoughts? Richard -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel -- http://cecinestpasunefromage.wordpress.com/ in your fear, seek only peace in your fear, seek only love -d. bowie -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Use AutoQA to track changes in provides and requires?
Just an idea I had and wanted to float it out to the group... I think it would be nice to get an informational (obviously, not a blocking type check) to get changes in the requires or provides of a package. It would be a hassle to check it manually but I hope it would be fairly easy to automate. I'm thinking the output would just be a simple log showing added or removed items and perhaps version/soversion changes. One instance it might has helped in is BZ#842181, although in this case only rawhide was affected so as far as I know there's no real mechanism to cancel the update. Thoughts? Richard Something like this? [1] [2] We already do that in the form of 'rpmguard' test [3]. Currently you have to sign-up manually to receive rpmguard/rpmlint results for new package builds [4]. [1] http://autoqa.fedoraproject.org/results/409386-autotest/virt02.qa/rpmguard/results/1:blender-2.63a-5.fc.html [2] http://autoqa.fedoraproject.org/results/409350-autotest/virt02.qa/rpmguard/results/1:libguestfs-1.19.27.html [3] http://autoqa.fedoraproject.org/resultsdb/frontend/search?envr=testcase=rpmguardresults=PASSEDresults=INFOresults=FAILEDresults=ABORTEDresults=CRASHEDresults=WAIVEDresults=NEEDS_INSPECTIONresults=RUNNINGarch=limit=20 [4] http://jlaska.wordpress.com/2010/06/01/fedora-package-maintainers-want-test-results/ -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: redhat-lsb-desktop versus transition to current libpng
On 08/01/2012 10:03 AM, Tom Lane wrote: What this means, IMO, is that we need to split out libpng12 as a separate package. The current hack that I'm using (bundling 1.2 and 1.5 into a single SRPM) was never meant to be more than a very short-term stopgap; I'm sure it violates all sorts of packaging guidelines. Is there any way we can fast-track that? I see little value in going through the normal package review pushups, when this is absolutely nothing except a backwards-compatibility package --- it ought to be exactly like the F16 libpng package. And I'd like to get it done before the F18 branch. Rather than working around the review process, just go ahead and make the package, upload it somewhere, open a review ticket, and I'll review it after lunch today. I'm familiar with that package, so it should be a very quick review for me to complete, and the branching request should be able to be processed today. ~tom == Fedora Project -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
[perl-Danga-Socket/el6] changes root lib
commit 0b85f89dee70e9070f4334842497b046d325ce9f
Author: Luis Bazan lba...@fedoraproject.org
Date: Wed Aug 1 11:05:23 2012 -0500
changes root lib
perl-Danga-Socket.spec |7 +--
1 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
---
diff --git a/perl-Danga-Socket.spec b/perl-Danga-Socket.spec
index 0bb0405..5894c32 100644
--- a/perl-Danga-Socket.spec
+++ b/perl-Danga-Socket.spec
@@ -37,10 +37,13 @@ make test
%files
%defattr(-,root,root,-)
%doc CHANGES examples/
-%{perl_vendorlib}/Danga
-%{_mandir}/man3/Danga::Socket.*
+%{perl_vendorlib}/*
+%{_mandir}/man3/*
%changelog
+* Wed Aug 01 2012 Luis Bazan lba...@fedoraproject.org - 1.61-4
+- changes lib root
+
* Wed Aug 01 2012 Luis Bazan lba...@fedoraproject.org - 1.61-3
- rebuild againts to check log
--
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: [ACTION REQUIRED] [FINAL NOTICE] Retiring packages for F-18
Nikola Pajkovsky (npajk...@redhat.com) said: Bill Nottingham nott...@redhat.com writes: Before we branch for Fedora 18, as is custom, we will block currently orphaned packages and packages that have failed to build since Fedora 16. The following packages are currently orphaned, or fail to build. If you have a need for one of these packages, please pick them up. If no one claims any of these packages, they will be blocked before we branch for Fedora 18. We will block these packages on Monday, August 06. Note that if you're receiving this mail directly, it's because you are a co-maintainer of one of these packages. Please work with your comaintainers to take up maintenance. still there's no orphaned iptraf Please follow the procedure at: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_remove_a_package_at_end_of_life Thanks, Bill -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: redhat-lsb-desktop versus transition to current libpng
Rahul Sundaram (methe...@gmail.com) said: On 08/01/2012 01:06 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: Well, that's really it. The format of LSB is a bit odd to a lay reader, but AFAICT, it really does mean: to be technically in compliance with LSB-desktop, you need to ship a libpng12.so.0 which provides the listed functions. End of story. I don't see a workaround. Fedora is not LSB compatible. Is it? Why do we even care about this at all? If we are providing a redhat-lsb package that provides the requirements specified in the LSB, it should be correct. I can see assorted ways we could theoretically handle a desire to remove libpng 1.2 from the distribution, but merely dropping the req from redhat-lsb is the obviously wrong answer. Bill -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Use AutoQA to track changes in provides and requires?
On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 10:37 AM, Kamil Paral kpa...@redhat.com wrote: Something like this? [1] [2] Yup! Something a lot like that! I did look over the AutoQA wiki before posting but didn't know enough about rpmguard to know that where I needed to look :) We already do that in the form of 'rpmguard' test [3]. Currently you have to sign-up manually to receive rpmguard/rpmlint results for new package builds [4]. So you have to subscribe per package per release? I don't necessarily want them emailed to me but accessible somewhere would be nice. Thanks, Richard -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: redhat-lsb-desktop versus transition to current libpng
On 08/01/2012 09:45 PM, Bill Nottingham wrote: I can see assorted ways we could theoretically handle a desire to remove libpng 1.2 from the distribution, but merely dropping the req from redhat-lsb is the obviously wrong answer. Right. I was obviously not suggesting it but perhaps dropping the LSB package itself would be a appropriate move Rahul -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: redhat-lsb-desktop versus transition to current libpng
Il giorno mer, 01/08/2012 alle 09.51 -0400, Adam Jackson ha scritto: Fedora is not LSB compatible. Is it? Why do we even care about this at all? It is if you install redhat-lsb. The only intrinsic reason to care about LSB support is binary compatibility; Fedora broadly doesn't, but that doesn't mean it's not a useful end. Personally I've definitely had occasion to need older builds of things like boost and openssl on newer Fedora releases. repoquery is also telling me there are things in Fedora that _do_ require redhat-lsb, at least in F16. I can't speak to the particulars there, you'd need to look into that per-package. In rawhide, the packages requiring redhat-lsb are: bcfg2-server rear tomcat6 HTH, Nicola -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: redhat-lsb-desktop versus transition to current libpng
On 08/01/2012 10:21 AM, Richard Hughes wrote: On 1 August 2012 10:47, Rahul Sundarammethe...@gmail.com wrote: Fedora is not LSB compatible. Is it? Why do we even care about this at all? I think I can speak for most of the core GNOME desktop developers and state that we don't care about LSB one little bit. Is not lsb as outdated as the rest of those so called standards? Btw should not this package be called fedora-lsb-desktop or system-lsb-desktop... JBG -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora ARM weekly status meeting 2012-08-01
Good day all, This weeks Fedora ARM status meeting will take place today (Wednesday Aug 1st) in #fedora-meeting-1 on Freenode. Times in various time zones (please let us know if these do not work): PDT: 1pm MDT: 2pm CDT: 3pm EDT: 4pm UTC: 8pm BST: 9pm CST: 10pm Current items on the agenda: 1) F18 - Mass rebuild status - Defining release criteria for F18 - F18 Alpha Release 2) Primary Architecture push 3) Raspberry Pi Remix Update 4) Your topic here If you have any other items you would like to discuss that are not mentioned, please feel free to send an email to the list or bring it up at the end of the meeting. Paul -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: [fedora-arm] Fedora ARM weekly status meeting 2012-08-01
On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 6:19 PM, Paul Whalen pwha...@redhat.com wrote: Good day all, This weeks Fedora ARM status meeting will take place today (Wednesday Aug 1st) in #fedora-meeting-1 on Freenode. Times in various time zones (please let us know if these do not work): PDT: 1pm MDT: 2pm CDT: 3pm EDT: 4pm UTC: 8pm BST: 9pm CST: 10pm Current items on the agenda: 1) F18 - Mass rebuild status - Defining release criteria for F18 I think we should be aiming for all that is required for a Primary Arch promotion. If we don't meet that we're screwed for point 2. - F18 Alpha Release 2) Primary Architecture push 2.1 ) Enterprise HW status for koji build platform 2.2 ) Documentation status update 2.3 ) package build status 2.4 ) Status update on QA and QA process 3) Raspberry Pi Remix Update 4) Your topic here If you have any other items you would like to discuss that are not mentioned, please feel free to send an email to the list or bring it up at the end of the meeting. Paul ___ arm mailing list a...@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/arm -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: redhat-lsb-desktop versus transition to current libpng
On 08/01/2012 04:48 PM, Nicola Soranzo wrote: bcfg2-server I dont think it's necessary for it to depend on redhat-lsb-desktop anymore since that package has move to using unit files instead.. JBG -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
[Bug 840288] perlbrew-0.46 is available
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840288 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- perlbrew-0.46-1.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- 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
[Bug 841133] CVE-2012-1151 perl-DBD-Pg: Format string flaws by turning db notices into Perl warnings and by preparing DBD statement [fedora-all]
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=841133 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- perl-DBD-Pg-2.19.2-1.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- 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: Provenpackager help needed to complete libpng/libtiff transition
On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 12:53 AM, Tom Lane t...@redhat.com wrote: There are still about half a dozen packages left that failed the recent mass rebuild because they contain source-code dependencies on obsolete versions of libpng and/or libtiff. I've filed patches to fix them, but don't have permissions to do it myself. If any provenpackagers have a bit of time to spare, could I pester you to look at these bugs? Pixie 843294 dcmtk 819236 fuse-emulator 843645 grace 843647 gshutdown 843648 luakit 843652 pngnq 843655 tucnak2 843658 These are done. -J Thanks! regards, tom lane -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel -- http://cecinestpasunefromage.wordpress.com/ in your fear, seek only peace in your fear, seek only love -d. bowie -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
[Bug 845057] Review Request: perl-Sub-Exporter-Progressive - Only use Sub::Exporter if you need it
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845057 Paul Howarth p...@city-fan.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||perl-devel@lists.fedoraproj ||ect.org --- Comment #1 from Paul Howarth p...@city-fan.org --- New upstream release: Spec URL: http://subversion.city-fan.org/repos/cfo-repo/perl-Sub-Exporter-Progressive/branches/fedora/perl-Sub-Exporter-Progressive.spec SRPM URL: http://www.city-fan.org/~paul/extras/perl-Sub-Exporter-Progressive/perl-Sub-Exporter-Progressive-0.001003-1.fc18.src.rpm -- 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: Use AutoQA to track changes in provides and requires?
On Wed, 2012-08-01 at 11:17 -0500, Richard Shaw wrote: On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 10:37 AM, Kamil Paral kpa...@redhat.com wrote: Something like this? [1] [2] Yup! Something a lot like that! I did look over the AutoQA wiki before posting but didn't know enough about rpmguard to know that where I needed to look :) We already do that in the form of 'rpmguard' test [3]. Currently you have to sign-up manually to receive rpmguard/rpmlint results for new package builds [4]. So you have to subscribe per package per release? I don't necessarily want them emailed to me but accessible somewhere would be nice. All AutoQA results can be accessed via resultsdb: http://autoqa.fedoraproject.org/resultsdb/frontend You can do a search for a specific package and/or test case. On the search page - http://autoqa.fedoraproject.org/resultsdb/frontend/search - 'Envr' seems to be the place to put the package name. So if you put 'kernel' in the 'Envr' box, and 'rpmguard' in the 'Testcase' box, and hit search, you get all the rpmguard tests for kernel package builds. Kamil, perhaps the search interface could be made a bit friendlier? A better name for the field than 'Envr', whatever the heck that's supposed to mean? A drop-down list for 'testcase', rather than free text? Friendly unicorn pictures? :) -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora http://www.happyassassin.net -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: redhat-lsb-desktop versus transition to current libpng
Tom Callaway tcall...@redhat.com writes: On 08/01/2012 10:03 AM, Tom Lane wrote: What this means, IMO, is that we need to split out libpng12 as a separate package. The current hack that I'm using (bundling 1.2 and 1.5 into a single SRPM) was never meant to be more than a very short-term stopgap; I'm sure it violates all sorts of packaging guidelines. Rather than working around the review process, just go ahead and make the package, upload it somewhere, open a review ticket, and I'll review it after lunch today. I'm familiar with that package, so it should be a very quick review for me to complete, and the branching request should be able to be processed today. Thanks for offering! Review request is in bug #845110 regards, tom lane -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
[Guidelines Change] Changes to the Packaging Guidelines
Here are the latest set of changes to the Fedora Packaging Guidelines: --- A new section has been added to the SysV Initscripts section, discussing the proper use of subsys locking. Even though Fedora packages should no longer be using SysV Initscripts as a primary service mechanism, Red Hat Enterprise Linux and EPEL do. Additionally, Red Hat points partners to the Fedora Guidelines when they build for RHEL. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SysVInitScript#Careful_Handling_of_.2Fvar.2Flock.2Fsubsys.2F.3Cservice_name.3E_mechanism --- The review guidelines now reflect the use of sha256sum (instead of md5sum) to confirm upstream source integrity. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ReviewGuidelines#Things_To_Check_On_Review --- The PHP Packaging guidelines have been updated to include guidance about when it is appropriate to have an explicit Requires on httpd mod_php, how to handle explicit Requires on PHP extensions, and how to handle a Requires for a minimum PHP version. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:PHP#Apache_requirement https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:PHP#Extensions_Requires https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:PHP#Requiring_a_Minimum_PHP_version --- A new section on Macros has been added to the Packaging Guidelines, covering Packaging of Additional RPM Macros. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Packaging_of_Additional_RPM_Macros --- A new section on the Documentation= field in systemd unit files (F17+) has been added. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Systemd#Documentation_field --- A short section on the Group tag in Fedora packages has been added. All current versions of Fedora (and their respective RPM versions) treat the Group tag as optional. Packages may include a Group: field for compatibility with EPEL, but are not required to do so. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Group_tag --- The RHEL conditionalization has been removed from the Python3 example spec file, as it is no longer valid. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Example_spec_file --- These guidelines (and changes) were approved by the Fedora Packaging Committee (FPC). Many thanks to Remi Collet, David Malcolm, Vit Ondruch, Lennart Poettering, Michael Scherer, Dave Sullivan, and all of the members of the FPC, for assisting in drafting, refining, and passing these guidelines. As a reminder: The Fedora Packaging Guidelines are living documents! If you find something missing, incorrect, or in need of revision, you can suggest a draft change. The procedure for this is documented here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Committee#GuidelineChangeProcedure Thanks, ~tom ___ devel-announce mailing list devel-annou...@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel-announce -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: [ACTION REQUIRED] [FINAL NOTICE] Retiring packages for F-18
On Qua, 2012-08-01 at 00:36 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote: I wrote: I'm looking into these: Bill Nottingham wrote: Package komparator (fails to build) Package krecipes (fails to build) Package qalculate-kde (fails to build) Package tesseract (fails to build) I fixed these 4 packages now. Note that krecipes and tesseract both have newer upstream versions available: * krecipes: - current in Fedora: 1.0-beta2 (kdelibs3) - current upstream: 2.0-beta2 (kdelibs4) Note that this will need significant packaging changes, being a KDE Platform 4 app now (whereas the current Fedora specfile is for the old kdelibs3 version). * tesseract: - current in Fedora: 3.00 - current upstream: 3.01 (new features, bugfixes etc.) It looks like they both could use a new (co)maintainer. For komparator and qalculate-kde, the respective kdelibs3-based versions currently in Fedora are the latest (last?) upstream versions though. :-( Hi, repoquery -q qalculate-kde komparator komparator-0:0.9-5.fc15.x86_64 qalculate-kde-0:0.9.7-3.fc15.x86_64 Since komparator and qalculate-kde was not rebuild in F17. Shouldn't we also update F17 ? at least. Thanks, -- Sérgio M. B. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora ARM weekly status meeting minutes 2012-08-01
Good day all, Thanks to those who were able to join us for the weekly status meeting today. For those that were unable, the minutes are posted below: Minutes: http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2012-08-01/fedora-meeting-1.2012-08-01-20.01.html Minutes (text): http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2012-08-01/fedora-meeting-1.2012-08-01-20.01.txt Log: http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2012-08-01/fedora-meeting-1.2012-08-01-20.01.log.html Paul -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Summary/Minutes from today's FESCo Meeting (2012-07-23)
- 元のメッセージ - | Our default font set for most languages, DejaVu, ships carefully | designed | hinting bytecode written specifically for FreeType's bytecode | interpreter, | and its designers explicitly ask for it to be used rather than the | autohinter. (Some people dislike the font's look with the hinting, | but it is | how the designers intended it to look.) Sure. I'm not saying that there are no well-hinted fonts in free fonts. I'd respect their efforts. Anyway, as I planned to prepare some references for comparison, I've done and put them at http://tagoh.fedorapeople.org/tmp/hints/. all.tar.xz may helps to see all smoothly on your machine. I used pango-view this time to avoid the out of alignment on taking a screenshot as far as possible for easy comparison and to reduce the workload. also disabled most fontconfig rules at /etc/fonts/conf.d to avoid the side-effects of them on this testing because the user fonts.conf can't override it if it's changed after 50-user.conf. and only picked up the fonts packages installed by default. My feeling on this testing is fifty-fifty to determine which should be better for default. there are some fonts that hinting is totally broken, and partly broken that depends on the pixel size. of course well-hinted fonts and no changes because of maybe no hinting or using ttfautohint perhaps. Having said, from any possibilities that there may be the case other fonts can't get a win to be default because of its quality (of course it may be not necessarily the case), I'm still thinking that enabling autohinting by default may helps a lot. FWIW I'm about to add a feature of hinting related things in fonts-tweak-tool so even if something goes wrong for self-installed fonts by users say, they can change it easily as needed. -- Akira TAGOH -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
[Bug 844919] New: perl-5.16.0: /[\h]/ does not match non-breakable space U+00A0
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844919
Bug ID: 844919
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
Severity: unspecified
URL: https://rt.perl.org/rt3//Public/Bug/Display.html?id=11
4220
Version: rawhide
Priority: unspecified
CC: cw...@alumni.drew.edu, iarn...@gmail.com,
jples...@redhat.com, ka...@ucw.cz, lkund...@v3.sk,
mmasl...@redhat.com,
perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org, ppi...@redhat.com,
psab...@redhat.com, rc040...@freenet.de,
tcall...@redhat.com
Assignee: mmasl...@redhat.com
Summary: perl-5.16.0: /[\h]/ does not match non-breakable space
U+00A0
Regression: ---
Story Points: ---
Classification: Fedora
OS: Unspecified
Reporter: ppi...@redhat.com
Type: Bug
Documentation: ---
Hardware: Unspecified
Mount Type: ---
Status: ASSIGNED
Component: perl
Product: Fedora
# rpm -q perl
perl-5.16.0-227.fc18.x86_64
# perl -le 'print qq{\xA0} =~ /\h/ ? 1: 0'
1
# perl -le 'print qq{\xA0} =~ /[\h]/ ? 1: 0'
0
This is regression since 5.16.0.
Upstream bug report
https://rt.perl.org/rt3//Public/Bug/Display.html?id=114220, fix is in private
branch remotes/origin/smoke-me/khw-maint5.16_bug114220 as
commit ee895e3e46998560ad9b18ffcaf5852b1fbc5403
Author: Karl Williamson pub...@khwilliamson.com
Date: Sat Jul 21 12:12:33 2012 -0600
PATCH: [perl #114220] /\h/ not equiv to /[\h]/
\h matches the No-Break space even under /d. It is the only
(non-complemented) Posix-like character class that has matches under /d
in the Latin1 range above ASCII. A special case is made for it, and \H
to make sure they have the correct code points.
This will probably go into perl 5.16.1, but it has not yet been merged into
remotes/origin/maint-5.16.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
perl-devel mailing list
perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/perl-devel
[Bug 844953] New: Upgrade to new upstream version
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844953 Bug ID: 844953 QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org Severity: unspecified Version: el6 Priority: unspecified CC: massimo.pala...@gmail.com, perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Assignee: massimo.pala...@gmail.com Summary: Upgrade to new upstream version Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Unspecified Reporter: lionel.c...@cern.ch Type: Bug Documentation: --- Hardware: Unspecified Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: perl-No-Worries Product: Fedora EPEL The latest version of No::Worries on CPAN is now 0.5. This is the version to use everywhere. Please upgrade in EPEL. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. -- Fedora Extras Perl SIG http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl perl-devel mailing list perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/perl-devel
[Bug 844965] New: perl-Devel-GlobalDestruction-0.08 is available
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844965 Bug ID: 844965 Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org Severity: unspecified Version: rawhide Priority: unspecified CC: mmasl...@redhat.com, p...@city-fan.org, perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Assignee: p...@city-fan.org Summary: perl-Devel-GlobalDestruction-0.08 is available Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Unspecified Reporter: upstream-release-monitor...@fedoraproject.org Type: --- Documentation: --- Hardware: Unspecified Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: perl-Devel-GlobalDestruction Product: Fedora Latest upstream release: 0.08 Current version in Fedora Rawhide: 0.07 URL: http://search.cpan.org/dist/Devel-GlobalDestruction/ Please consult the package updates policy before you issue an update to a stable branch: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Updates_Policy More information about the service that created this bug can be found at: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Upstream_release_monitoring -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. -- Fedora Extras Perl SIG http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl perl-devel mailing list perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/perl-devel
[Bug 844966] New: perl-Glib-Object-Introspection-0.011 is available
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844966 Bug ID: 844966 Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org Severity: unspecified Version: rawhide Priority: unspecified CC: berra...@redhat.com, perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Assignee: berra...@redhat.com Summary: perl-Glib-Object-Introspection-0.011 is available Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Unspecified Reporter: upstream-release-monitor...@fedoraproject.org Type: --- Documentation: --- Hardware: Unspecified Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: perl-Glib-Object-Introspection Product: Fedora Latest upstream release: 0.011 Current version in Fedora Rawhide: 0.010 URL: http://search.cpan.org/dist/Glib-Object-Introspection/ Please consult the package updates policy before you issue an update to a stable branch: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Updates_Policy More information about the service that created this bug can be found at: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Upstream_release_monitoring -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. -- Fedora Extras Perl SIG http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl perl-devel mailing list perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/perl-devel
File No-Worries-0.5.tar.gz uploaded to lookaside cache by mpaladin
A file has been added to the lookaside cache for perl-No-Worries: 1d8e186e91433869aa98e4d7fdab69ff No-Worries-0.5.tar.gz -- Fedora Extras Perl SIG http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl perl-devel mailing list perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/perl-devel
[Bug 746941] perl-Mojolicious-3.17 is available
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=746941 Upstream Release Monitoring upstream-release-monitor...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|perl-Mojolicious-3.15 is|perl-Mojolicious-3.17 is |available |available -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. -- Fedora Extras Perl SIG http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl perl-devel mailing list perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/perl-devel
[Bug 746941] perl-Mojolicious-3.17 is available
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=746941 --- Comment #73 from Upstream Release Monitoring upstream-release-monitor...@fedoraproject.org --- Latest upstream release: 3.17 Current version in Fedora Rawhide: 3.15 URL: http://search.cpan.org/dist/Mojolicious/ Please consult the package updates policy before you issue an update to a stable branch: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Updates_Policy More information about the service that created this bug can be found at: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Upstream_release_monitoring -- 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
[perl-No-Worries] updating to latest upstream version
commit 04ba6872c1d2e1cf68175f40b0678a811cdf8b44
Author: Massimo massimo.pala...@gmail.com
Date: Wed Aug 1 13:43:51 2012 +0200
updating to latest upstream version
.gitignore |1 +
perl-No-Worries.spec |7 +--
sources |2 +-
3 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
---
diff --git a/.gitignore b/.gitignore
index d015e85..8dc40f7 100644
--- a/.gitignore
+++ b/.gitignore
@@ -1,2 +1,3 @@
/No-Worries-0.3.tar.gz
/No-Worries-0.4.tar.gz
+/No-Worries-0.5.tar.gz
diff --git a/perl-No-Worries.spec b/perl-No-Worries.spec
index 801c672..0143ecf 100644
--- a/perl-No-Worries.spec
+++ b/perl-No-Worries.spec
@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
Name: perl-No-Worries
-Version:0.4
-Release:3%{?dist}
+Version:0.5
+Release:1%{?dist}
Summary:Perl coding without worries
License:GPL+ or Artistic
Group: Development/Libraries
@@ -63,6 +63,9 @@ rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
%{_mandir}/man3/*
%changelog
+* Wed Aug 01 2012 Massimo Paladin massimo.pala...@gmail.com 0.5-1
+- Updating to latest upstream version.
+
* Fri Jul 20 2012 Fedora Release Engineering rel-...@lists.fedoraproject.org
- 0.4-3
- Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_18_Mass_Rebuild
diff --git a/sources b/sources
index ec7e710..f641de2 100644
--- a/sources
+++ b/sources
@@ -1 +1 @@
-a559692830b93e1d9c80efea8ad8a2b1 No-Worries-0.4.tar.gz
+1d8e186e91433869aa98e4d7fdab69ff No-Worries-0.5.tar.gz
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
perl-devel mailing list
perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/perl-devel
Broken dependencies: perl-PDL
perl-PDL has broken dependencies in the rawhide tree: On x86_64: perl-PDL-2.4.10-1.fc17.x86_64 requires perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.14.2) On i386: perl-PDL-2.4.10-1.fc17.i686 requires perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.14.2) 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
Broken dependencies: perl-SOAP-Transport-TCP
perl-SOAP-Transport-TCP has broken dependencies in the rawhide tree: On x86_64: perl-SOAP-Transport-TCP-0.715-6.fc18.noarch requires perl(IO::SessionSet) perl-SOAP-Transport-TCP-0.715-6.fc18.noarch requires perl(IO::SessionData) On i386: perl-SOAP-Transport-TCP-0.715-6.fc18.noarch requires perl(IO::SessionSet) perl-SOAP-Transport-TCP-0.715-6.fc18.noarch requires perl(IO::SessionData) 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
Broken dependencies: perl-Unix-Statgrab
perl-Unix-Statgrab has broken dependencies in the rawhide tree: On x86_64: perl-Unix-Statgrab-0.04-13.fc17.x86_64 requires perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.14.2) On i386: perl-Unix-Statgrab-0.04-13.fc17.i686 requires perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.14.2) 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
Broken dependencies: perl-eperl
perl-eperl has broken dependencies in the rawhide tree: On x86_64: perl-eperl-2.2.14-19.fc17.x86_64 requires perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.14.2) On i386: perl-eperl-2.2.14-19.fc17.i686 requires perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.14.2) 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
[Bug 844988] New: Upgrade to new upstream version
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844988 Bug ID: 844988 QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org Severity: unspecified Version: el6 Priority: unspecified CC: perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org, st...@silug.org Assignee: st...@silug.org Summary: Upgrade to new upstream version Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Unspecified Reporter: lionel.c...@cern.ch Type: Bug Documentation: --- Hardware: Unspecified Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: perl-Test-Class Product: Fedora EPEL The latest version of Test::Class on CPAN is now 0.37. This is the version to use everywhere. Please upgrade in Fedora as well as EPEL5 and EPEL6. -- 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
[perl-No-Worries/el5] (3 commits) ...updating to latest upstream version
Summary of changes: 3e887d7... Perl 5.16 rebuild (*) 2aba414... - Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_18_Mass (*) 04ba687... updating to latest upstream version (*) (*) 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-No-Worries/el6] (3 commits) ...updating to latest upstream version
Summary of changes: 3e887d7... Perl 5.16 rebuild (*) 2aba414... - Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_18_Mass (*) 04ba687... updating to latest upstream version (*) (*) 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-No-Worries/f16] (3 commits) ...updating to latest upstream version
Summary of changes: 3e887d7... Perl 5.16 rebuild (*) 2aba414... - Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_18_Mass (*) 04ba687... updating to latest upstream version (*) (*) 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-No-Worries/f17] (3 commits) ...updating to latest upstream version
Summary of changes: 3e887d7... Perl 5.16 rebuild (*) 2aba414... - Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_18_Mass (*) 04ba687... updating to latest upstream version (*) (*) This commit already existed in another branch; no separate mail sent -- Fedora Extras Perl SIG http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl perl-devel mailing list perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/perl-devel
[Bug 844953] Upgrade to new upstream version
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844953 --- Comment #1 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- perl-No-Worries-0.5-1.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-No-Worries-0.5-1.el6 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. -- Fedora Extras Perl SIG http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl perl-devel mailing list perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/perl-devel
[Bug 844953] Upgrade to new upstream version
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844953 --- Comment #2 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- perl-No-Worries-0.5-1.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-No-Worries-0.5-1.fc16 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. -- Fedora Extras Perl SIG http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl perl-devel mailing list perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/perl-devel
[Bug 844953] Upgrade to new upstream version
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844953 --- Comment #3 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- perl-No-Worries-0.5-1.el5 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 5. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-No-Worries-0.5-1.el5 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. -- Fedora Extras Perl SIG http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl perl-devel mailing list perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/perl-devel
[Bug 844953] Upgrade to new upstream version
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844953 --- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- perl-No-Worries-0.5-1.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-No-Worries-0.5-1.fc17 -- 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
[perl-B-Keywords] Specify all dependencies
commit d22dab880db3a6e20a67a51cb757e0352a6407ba
Author: Jitka Plesnikova jples...@redhat.com
Date: Wed Aug 1 15:22:10 2012 +0200
Specify all dependencies
perl-B-Keywords.spec | 20 +++-
1 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
---
diff --git a/perl-B-Keywords.spec b/perl-B-Keywords.spec
index 6fe50ad..c76c451 100644
--- a/perl-B-Keywords.spec
+++ b/perl-B-Keywords.spec
@@ -1,16 +1,20 @@
Name: perl-B-Keywords
Version:1.12
-Release:3%{?dist}
+Release:4%{?dist}
Summary:Lists of reserved barewords and symbol names
Group: Development/Libraries
License:GPL+ or Artistic
URL:http://search.cpan.org/dist/B-Keywords/
Source0:
http://search.cpan.org/CPAN/authors/id/R/RU/RURBAN/B-Keywords-%{version}.tar.gz
-BuildRoot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(id -nu)
BuildArch: noarch
BuildRequires: perl(ExtUtils::MakeMaker)
-BuildRequires: perl(Test::More)
+BuildRequires: perl(Exporter)
BuildRequires: perl(YAML)
+# Tests
+BuildRequires: perl(File::Spec)
+BuildRequires: perl(lib)
+BuildRequires: perl(Test)
+BuildRequires: perl(Test::More)
Requires: perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_%(eval `perl -V:version`; echo $version))
@@ -28,7 +32,6 @@ 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 -depth -type d -exec rmdir {} ';' 2/dev/null
@@ -39,18 +42,17 @@ find $RPM_BUILD_ROOT -depth -type d -exec rmdir {} ';'
2/dev/null
make test
-%clean
-rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
-
-
%files
-%defattr(-,root,root,-)
%doc Changes LICENSE
%{perl_vendorlib}/B/
%{_mandir}/man3/B::Keywords.3pm*
%changelog
+* Wed Aug 1 2012 Jitka Plesnikova jples...@redhat.com - 1.12-4
+- Add BR: perl(File::Spec), perl(lib), perl(Test), perl(Exporter)
+- Clean up for modern rpmbuild
+
* Fri Jul 20 2012 Fedora Release Engineering rel-...@lists.fedoraproject.org
- 1.12-3
- Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_18_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
[Bug 844965] perl-Devel-GlobalDestruction-0.08 is available
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844965 Paul Howarth p...@city-fan.org changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||845057 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. -- Fedora Extras Perl SIG http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl perl-devel mailing list perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/perl-devel
File Devel-GlobalDestruction-0.08.tar.gz uploaded to lookaside cache by pghmcfc
A file has been added to the lookaside cache for perl-Devel-GlobalDestruction: 2db1c816bb2a5e64fcb47d0bc1c577a7 Devel-GlobalDestruction-0.08.tar.gz -- Fedora Extras Perl SIG http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl perl-devel mailing list perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/perl-devel
[perl-Danga-Socket/el6] rebuild again to check log
commit 792df027036941e3708fb5d7f966aa1e41883713
Author: Luis Bazan lba...@fedoraproject.org
Date: Wed Aug 1 10:50:36 2012 -0500
rebuild again to check log
perl-Danga-Socket.spec |5 -
1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
---
diff --git a/perl-Danga-Socket.spec b/perl-Danga-Socket.spec
index 530dc21..0bb0405 100644
--- a/perl-Danga-Socket.spec
+++ b/perl-Danga-Socket.spec
@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
Name: perl-Danga-Socket
Version:1.61
-Release:2%{?dist}
+Release:3%{?dist}
Summary:Event loop and event-driven async socket base class
License:GPL+ or Artistic
Group: Development/Libraries
@@ -41,6 +41,9 @@ make test
%{_mandir}/man3/Danga::Socket.*
%changelog
+* Wed Aug 01 2012 Luis Bazan lba...@fedoraproject.org - 1.61-3
+- rebuild againts to check log
+
* Tue Jul 31 2012 Luis Bazan lba...@fedoraproject.org - 1.61-2
- Fix dependency
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
perl-devel mailing list
perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/perl-devel
File Mojolicious-3.17.tar.gz uploaded to lookaside cache by yaneti
A file has been added to the lookaside cache for perl-Mojolicious: 5757e73e2ac84010f741c2c399cc0593 Mojolicious-3.17.tar.gz -- Fedora Extras Perl SIG http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl perl-devel mailing list perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/perl-devel
[perl-Mojolicious] Update to 3.17
commit 4567fe3cd398ee9cb4e04b8351ebcbdab9dcdc0f
Author: Yanko Kaneti yan...@declera.com
Date: Wed Aug 1 18:52:04 2012 +0300
Update to 3.17
.gitignore|1 +
perl-Mojolicious.spec |5 -
sources |2 +-
3 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
---
diff --git a/.gitignore b/.gitignore
index 502585f..c868b1b 100644
--- a/.gitignore
+++ b/.gitignore
@@ -50,3 +50,4 @@ Mojolicious-0.26.tar.gz
/Mojolicious-3.12.tar.gz
/Mojolicious-3.13.tar.gz
/Mojolicious-3.15.tar.gz
+/Mojolicious-3.17.tar.gz
diff --git a/perl-Mojolicious.spec b/perl-Mojolicious.spec
index 6884dee..0d1977a 100644
--- a/perl-Mojolicious.spec
+++ b/perl-Mojolicious.spec
@@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
Name: perl-Mojolicious
-Version:3.15
+Version:3.17
Release:1%{?dist}
Summary:A next generation web framework for Perl
License:Artistic 2.0
@@ -53,6 +53,9 @@ make test
%{_mandir}/man3/*
%changelog
+* Wed Aug 1 2012 Yanko Kaneti yan...@declera.com - 3.17-1
+- Update to 3.17
+
* Mon Jul 30 2012 Yanko Kaneti yan...@declera.com - 3.15-1
- Update to 3.15
diff --git a/sources b/sources
index a7f30a0..f206fa7 100644
--- a/sources
+++ b/sources
@@ -1 +1 @@
-3691da494bc2f109fd30904278988187 Mojolicious-3.15.tar.gz
+5757e73e2ac84010f741c2c399cc0593 Mojolicious-3.17.tar.gz
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
perl-devel mailing list
perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/perl-devel
[Bug 841133] CVE-2012-1151 perl-DBD-Pg: Format string flaws by turning db notices into Perl warnings and by preparing DBD statement [fedora-all]
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=841133 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2012-08-01 14:15:13 --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- perl-DBD-Pg-2.19.2-1.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. -- Fedora Extras Perl SIG http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl perl-devel mailing list perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/perl-devel
[Bug 840288] perlbrew-0.46 is available
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840288 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2012-08-01 14:17:02 --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- perlbrew-0.46-1.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- 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
[389-devel] revised ticket 407 - memory leak in dna plugin
https://fedorahosted.org/389/ticket/407 https://fedorahosted.org/389/attachment/ticket/407/0001-Ticket-407-memory-leak-in-dna-plugin.patch Thanks, Mark -- Mark Reynolds Senior Software Engineer Red Hat, Inc mreyno...@redhat.com -- 389-devel mailing list 389-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/389-devel
