On Wed, 12 Nov 2014 11:53:32 -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> 18:03:04 firefox folks removed their hack...
> 18:03:31 so they use /tmp again in rawhide.
> 18:04:14 that sounds like a regression
> 18:04:35 regression?
> 18:04:46 downloading multi gigabyte files into /tmp would probably
> easily fi
On Sun, 2 Nov 2014 10:13:10 -0500, Matthew Miller wrote:
> > Is there any authoritative group at Fedora who wants the product to not
> > suck like that?
>
> Authoritative? Probably FESCo.
https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1365
Basically, we need to tell every Fedora User that Firefox and Cl
[replies to the list please!]
On Sun, 2 Nov 2014 10:10:57 -0500, you wrote:
> As for the background, it had started with Firefox hardcoding /var/tmp as
> its temporary directory. Obviously, starting applications from within
> Firefox made them run in an environment different than when started on
Hello everyone!
See subject line. I wonder whether there is a group of people at Fedora
that could examine issues that let the entire product look bad?
As for the background, it had started with Firefox hardcoding /var/tmp as
its temporary directory. Obviously, starting applications from within
F
On Wed, 22 Oct 2014 09:51:36 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On 10/21/2014 08:41 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
>
> > I'm not sure why koji buildroots aren't busted however, unless it's
> > somehow the hosts yum (in the case of koji, f20 and copr el6) is doing
> > things differently?
>
> Well, koji build
On Mon, 20 Oct 2014 10:10:48 -0600, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> So if I mistype 'rm' as rn or rb will lrzsz or rn be installed so that it
> does the wrong thing next time? Or is this only some commands? And beyond
> removing someone from the wheel group what is the way to turn this off?
Is this
On Thu, 16 Oct 2014 14:40:50 +0200, Kalev Lember wrote:
> We seem to have a number of broken dependencies in F21 that have gone
> unfixed for a quite some time. Not sure what's up with them; the
> maintainers are supposed to get daily notifications to make sure these
> don't go unnoticed.
>
> Doe
On Thu, 16 Oct 2014 16:27:57 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> > It looks like one could simply prepend
> >
> > /usr/lib64/qt5/bin
> >
> > to $PATH to make available the executables, which are renamed to avoid
> > conflicts with other Qt versions.
>
> There you have your "wrapper script":
> export
On Thu, 16 Oct 2014 07:24:53 -0500, Rex Dieter wrote:
> There are several strategies:
>
> * The -qt5 convention is already used by most distributions, so many
> applications/tools have adapted to it already. If you're aware of any that
> haven't yet, I'd be happy to help produce upstreamable p
Some confusion here trying to use Fedora's Qt 5 packages, and it seems they
cannot be use quickly.
$ rpm -qa qt5\*|sort
qt5-qtbase-5.3.2-3.fc21.x86_64
qt5-qtbase-devel-5.3.2-3.fc21.x86_64
qt5-qtbase-gui-5.3.2-3.fc21.x86_64
qt5-qtbase-ibase-5.3.2-3.fc21.x86_64
qt5-qtbase-mysql-5.3.2-3.f
On Thu, 16 Oct 2014 02:32:49 -0700, Moez Roy wrote:
> Tripwire fails to build for F21 and Rawhide. Is there a proven
> packager out there who has some spare time to submit a fix for this?
Where is the package maintainer?
The non-responsive maintainer procedure ought to get restarted for him,
if t
On Wed, 24 Sep 2014 20:09:51 +0530, Lalatendu Mohanty wrote:
> On 09/24/2014 07:42 PM, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
> > Hello,
> > the “-p /sbin/ldconfig” syntax triggers a special behavior in RPM /if
> > the scriptlet is otherwise empty/. In your case, the “%post libs”
> > scriptlet also actually, su
On Wed, 24 Sep 2014 21:36:15 +0200, Till Maas wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I noticed that mulitple packages own /etc/bash_completion.d/ even though
> it is nowadays part of the filesystem package. From what I read from the
> Guidelines, it is not clear to me whether it is prohibited or not.
https://fedorapr
On Thu, 11 Sep 2014 13:54:07 +0200, Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos wrote:
> I'd like to split vpnc-script from vpnc [0], but I don't maintain the
> package, so I omitted the details. Anyway the issue is, that vpnc-script
> which has a different upstream [1] than vpnc, is used by both vpnc and
> openconne
On Thu, 11 Sep 2014 12:15:49 +0200, Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos wrote:
> Hello,
> There is a package which includes a subpackage that I'd like it split
> as a proper package (possibly with different maintainers). Is there some
> special process for that or does it have to follow the full process for
On Thu, 21 Aug 2014 09:37:55 -0400, Chuck Anderson wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 02:13:43PM +0100, David Howells wrote:
> > David Howells wrote:
> >
> > > > I can see a "fedpkg retire" option for removing it from Rawhide
> > >
> > > Which doesn't work, possibly due to a script error:
> > >
On Wed, 13 Aug 2014 11:22:17 -0600, Jerry James wrote:
> This is interesting.
>
> $ rpm -q iwl5000-firmware
> iwl5000-firmware-8.83.5.1_1-38.fc21.1.noarch
> $ rpmdev-vercmp
> iwl5000-firmware-8.83.5.1_1-38.fc21.1 iwl5000-firmware-8.83.5.1-39.fc22.1
> iwl5000-firmware-8.83.5.1_1-38.fc21.1 < iwl500
On Tue, 5 Aug 2014 17:03:36 +0200, Jochen Schmitt wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I'm trying to build the most recent release of stellarium.
>
> Because stellarium has switched to Qt5, I have got the followwing error
> messages:
>
> CMake Error at CMakeLists.txt:219 (FIND_PACKAGE):
> By not providing "F
On Mon, 28 Jul 2014 12:02:24 -0400 (EDT), Miloslav Trmač wrote:
> If upstream won’t use sonames or symbol versioning, it’s better for Fedora to
> patch the software to use them properly, even if it means having to continue
> to patch it. IIRC we do have various packages that have to do this.
>
On Mon, 28 Jul 2014 15:36:48 +0200, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
> If the udpate broke packages: a) it should not have been updated on stable
> releases (was it?),
Two updates have been filed hours ago,
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/json-c-0.12-1.fc20
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/u
On Sun, 8 Jun 2014 12:37:00 -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> lvm2's spec isn't very friendly to the rpmdev-bumpspec script that the
> mass rebuild uses, so it is a bit messed up. They seem to redefine
> 'release' for every subpackage and the bumpspec script tries to
> increment all of them and the vers
On Sun, 8 Jun 2014 01:15:51 +0400, Igor Gnatenko wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I just updated ogre to 1.9.0 in rawhide[0].
>
> There was so much changes in spec file, patches.
> * dropped devel-doc, because couldn't find docs in tarballs (mercurial'ed)
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Rena
On Mon, 2 Jun 2014 22:39:56 +0200, Nicolas Chauvet wrote:
> geeqie-1.1-13.fc20.src.rpm
In Rawhide it has been built with a patch and LCMS2 for some time.
For F20, there's something in updates-testing already, too.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.or
On Sun, 1 Jun 2014 19:28:38 +0200, Till Maas wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 01, 2014 at 03:33:28PM +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
>
> > > rss2emailmschwendt, mcepl, mschwendt
> > >
> >
> > That is inaccurate.
>
> No,
On Sun, 1 Jun 2014 11:24:09 +0200, Till Maas wrote:
>
> The following packages did not build for two releases (no new build
> since 2013-07-25) and will be retired when Fedora (F21) is branched,
> unless someone successfully builds them till then.
> rss2emailmschwendt, mc
On Fri, 30 May 2014 11:45:11 -0500, Richard Shaw wrote:
> First let me say that if anyone wants to be the primary maintainer of pvm
> please step up! I only need it as a dependency.
>
> While fixing the build for rawhide due to a tcl/tk update I had to look at
> the spec file and it was horrifyin
On Thu, 29 May 2014 09:59:00 -0500, Jon Ciesla wrote:
> > I visited pkgdb to try taking CUnit, but I can't. Pkgdb presents an empty
> > "Branch" field and doesn't let me continue. I'll look into reporting that
> > as a bug first.
> >
> > :-(
> >
>
> Odd, I took it with no issues. If you'd like i
On Thu, 29 May 2014 09:31:52 -0500, Jon Ciesla wrote:
> If someone doesn't step up soon I'll take CUnit.
I visited pkgdb to try taking CUnit, but I can't. Pkgdb presents an empty
"Branch" field and doesn't let me continue. I'll look into reporting that
as a bug first.
:-(
--
devel mailing list
On Thu, 29 May 2014 08:50:47 -0500, Jon Ciesla wrote:
> On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 8:43 AM, Till Maas wrote:
>
> > Since the mass rebuild will start in a week (2014-06-06) it is a good
> > time to start cleaning up Fedora. After the mass rebuild, packages that
> > fail to build for two releases will
On Fri, 16 May 2014 18:51:47 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Fri, 16 May 2014 11:28:20 +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>
> >
> > Are they permitted, and do they work?
> >
> > Specifically I need to install all the Xorg drivers (since I don't
> > kn
On Fri, 16 May 2014 11:28:20 +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>
> Are they permitted, and do they work?
>
> Specifically I need to install all the Xorg drivers (since I don't
> know what hardware will be installed on the target machine), thus:
>
> Requires: xorg-x11-drv-*
That doesn't w
On Tue, 13 May 2014 19:23:50 +0300, Ville Skyttä wrote:
> On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 5:14 PM, Richard Shaw wrote:
> > I would think you would need to step through the BR:'s get the capabilities
> > of the packages that the -devel package pull in, and then check that against
> > the requires of the re
On Sat, 03 May 2014 13:44:01 -0400, James Wilson Harshaw IV wrote:
> I recently have installed bournal, an encrypted journal program for
> Fedora.
>
> Although it installed with its dependencies, when run it said nano is
> needed to run.
>
> Whoever maintains this package, please add nano to the
With the fresh release of Audacious 3.5 final [1], I'm going to push this
new release also to Rawhide. It has been available via Copr [2] since
alpha1 already, and although I've not received any user feedback on the
pre-releases at all, I've evaluated it personally and also followed
upstream activi
On Wed, 23 Apr 2014 12:20:20 +0200, Mikolaj Izdebski wrote:
> On 04/23/2014 12:54 AM, Arun SAG wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I see openjdk-1.8.0 got built and pushed as an update for fedora 19
> > http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=505651 .
> >
> >
> > In the past the i686 rpms of
On Wed, 23 Apr 2014 12:13:29 +0200, Mikolaj Izdebski wrote:
> On 04/23/2014 12:07 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> > On Wed, 23 Apr 2014 11:51:21 +0200, Severin Gehwolf wrote:
> >
> >> I can only guess, but i386 updates being pushed to a x86_64 repo sounds
> >> lik
On Tue, 22 Apr 2014 15:54:51 -0700, Arun SAG wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I see openjdk-1.8.0 got built and pushed as an update for fedora 19
> http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=505651 .
>
>
> In the past the i686 rpms of openjdk were pushed into release x86_64
> repo of fedora 19
> (h
On Wed, 23 Apr 2014 11:51:21 +0200, Severin Gehwolf wrote:
> I can only guess, but i386 updates being pushed to a x86_64 repo sounds
> like a bug to me.
No, it's a pretty normal thing the mash multilib compose strategy does.
http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/mash.git/tree/
--
devel mailing lis
On Tue, 08 Apr 2014 18:30:25 +0400, Pavel Alexeev wrote:
> Dependency rebuild needed. If you are willing I'll rebuild all after 3
> days if you do not answer I should not do it.
> Packages for rebuild:
> $ repoquery --repoid=rawhide --whatrequires --alldeps ImageMagick\* |
> fgrep -v 'ImageMagick-
With the help of the Fedora Copr Project [1] I've made available
builds of Audacious 3.5-alpha1 for Fedora 20 and Rawhide:
https://copr.fedoraproject.org/coprs/mschwendt/audacious-next/
On the way to Audacious 3.5 the Plugin API is incompatible with the older
Audacious in F20 already, so don'
On Tue, 25 Feb 2014 16:32:37 +0200, Alexander Todorov wrote:
> > Well, your check may be too simplified. I've had a look at
> >
> >/mnt/fedora/l/libetpan-1.1-7.fc20.src.rpm
> >
> > and it contains a "tests" subdir with a few test programs, but no test-suite
> > to run automatically.
> >
>
> I
On Tue, 25 Feb 2014 13:47:01 +0200, Alexander Todorov wrote:
> >> https://github.com/atodorov/fedora-scripts/blob/master/sample-data/fedora-20/srpms-with-tests-WITHOUT-check-in-fedora-20-dvd
> >>
> >
> > Could you add a short classifier to each src.rpm name, which sums up why
> > your checker beli
On Tue, 25 Feb 2014 12:45:11 +0200, Alexander Todorov wrote:
> Hi guys,
> I have identified 551 packages on the Fedora 20 source DVD which are missing
> a
> %check section in their spec files but are very likely to have a test suite.
> See
> https://github.com/atodorov/fedora-scripts/blob/maste
On Fri, 21 Feb 2014 14:55:48 +, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> If you have code that can fairly reliably detect whether a test suite
> exists in the source tar.gz, then I think you would be justified
> in filing bugs for spec files which have not enabled the test suite.
It would need to be a tes
On Thu, 20 Feb 2014 17:28:02 +0100, Marcin Juszkiewicz wrote:
> W dniu 20.02.2014 17:16, Vivek Goyal pisze:
>
> > So instead of increasing release number on released branches, why don't
> > we append additional number after dist and bump that up in released
> > branch. So FC21 releases will look
On Sun, 09 Feb 2014 02:16:43 -0600, John Morris wrote:
> My goal for the forthcoming LinuxCNC release is readiness for inclusion
> in both Fedora and Debian.
>
> Right now, a "sample-configs" directory is installed into
> ${prefix}/share/doc/linuxcnc/examples.
>
> This is a typical pattern, at f
Does any packager use yum-builddep bash completion and would like
to explain it to me?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/884303
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
On Thu, 06 Feb 2014 22:07:52 +0100, Juan Orti Alcaine wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Last week, I notified the devel list about Steven Pritchard (FAS: steve) been
> unresponsive [1], and after many unsuccessful attempts to get bug #695589
> fixed
> [2], I request to take over the package amavisd-new.
>
On Wed, 05 Feb 2014 14:50:59 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Wed, 2014-02-05 at 22:48 +, Colin Macdonald wrote:
> > On 05/02/14 22:42, David Timothy Strauss wrote:
> > > This is also not the first time this has happened to me.
> >
> > I'll chime in: when I first switched to Fedora (F14/15
On Thu, 30 Jan 2014 15:46:37 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Jan 2014 12:44:20 +, Pavel Zhukov wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I don't use zygrib anymore. New owner is welcomed!
>
> According to the activity in koji, there has been an activ
On Thu, 30 Jan 2014 12:44:20 +, Pavel Zhukov wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I don't use zygrib anymore. New owner is welcomed!
According to the activity in koji, there has been an active owner for
a longer time already.
Apparently, it's named "zyGrib" and an example where the mixed case
causes conf
On Fri, 24 Jan 2014 22:36:02 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> Note there's a GUI tool similar to easy karma called gooey karma, waiting for
> a package sponsor.
>
We don't sponsor packages but packagers. ;)
Actually, the review request has stalled, waiting for the reviewer (here
also the sponsor
On Sat, 25 Jan 2014 22:00:02 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Right, but you were proposing to wait until it reaches a karma of +16.
Certainly not. That Yum update is only a good example where a high
karma threshold has been reached in less than a week, and even without
a vote from all available/acti
On Sat, 25 Jan 2014 19:17:14 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> > By the time the first testers noticed the scriptlet errors it was too
> > late, since stable updates cannot be withdrawn.
>
> That is also not a law of Physics. In the early days of Bodhi, one could
> actually unpush stuff from stable.
On Sat, 25 Jan 2014 19:29:12 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-23627
> > Karma:17
> > Stable karma: 16 (!)
> >
> > It has reached the karma threshold 16 after ~5 days.
> > And those have not been all testers.
>
> That can work for yum,
On Sat, 25 Jan 2014 00:21:13 +0100, Reindl Harald wrote:
> > More lessons to learn:
> >
> > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-23627
> > Karma:17
> > Stable karma: 16 (!)
> >
> > It has reached the karma threshold 16 after ~5 days.
> > And those have not been all tes
On Fri, 24 Jan 2014 15:35:24 -0700, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> Looking at the number of people who respond to the qa list at times.. I am
> going to say there are probably 6-10 active testers during non-release
> times. It comes and it goes, but that is about the number who seem active
> at lea
On Fri, 24 Jan 2014 22:17:20 +0100, Dominick Grift wrote:
> >
> > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-0806/selinux-policy-3.12.1-116.fc20
> >
> Because you would need to run RPM to notice it,
Or Yum, DNF, Yumex, PackageKit, all tools on top of RPM would run into the
scriptle
On Fri, 24 Jan 2014 12:39:55 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Critical_path_package#Actions
> >
> > | Packages within the critical path are required to perform the
> > | most fundamental actions on a system. Those actions include:
> > |
> > | [...]
> > | get
On Fri, 24 Jan 2014 21:06:29 +0100, Dominick Grift wrote:
> Agreed, The testers did not fail. Their issues were solved.
That doesn't match what one can read here:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-0806/selinux-policy-3.12.1-116.fc20
> They could not have found this issue in
On Fri, 24 Jan 2014 21:13:37 +0100, H. Guémar wrote:
> Hi,
>
> thank you for taking the time to join us.
> If you want to speed things up, I'd suggest that you start doing informal
> reviews of other pending reviews and when you're done, link them to your
> review.
> Many sponsors will ask you th
On Fri, 24 Jan 2014 11:14:50 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> It's not at all
> obvious to anyone that you ought to test update/install of another
> package in order to validate an update to selinux-policy-targeted .
> Hell, I don't do that.
Amazing.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA
On Fri, 24 Jan 2014 00:55:23 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> it is time to analyze the fallout from the following catastrophic Fedora 20
> regression:
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1054350
> "rpm scriptlets are exiting with status 127"
> * We are losing users to Ubuntu because of th
On Mon, 20 Jan 2014 01:53:42 -0500, Nathaniel McCallum wrote:
> Is it possible to build a one-time build of selinux-policy without
> scriptlets so that the update will succeed?
Define what you mean with "update will succeed". Simply replacing the
bad package with a new package doesn't fix it. The
On Mon, 20 Jan 2014 12:20:38 +0800, Christopher Meng wrote:
> IMO a SOP need to be documented or linked to selinux-policy package update
> also.
>
> BTW not all people run enforcing mode in daily time, so sometimes
> problems may not be found easily.
Running SELinux in enforcing mode is mandato
On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 23:02:24 -0500, Simo Sorce wrote:
> > Anyone not aware of the problem and the fix, who applies the -117.fc20
> > selinux-policy update in _enforcing_ mode (since it has entered stable
> > updates meanwhile) believing it to be a normal update, will face another
> > failure and a
Anyone not aware of the problem and the fix, who applies the -117.fc20
selinux-policy update in _enforcing_ mode (since it has entered stable
updates meanwhile) believing it to be a normal update, will face another
failure and a partial update. Package selinux-policy updated
to -117.fc20 but -targe
On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 20:03:14 +0100, Reindl Harald wrote:
> this case is *very* special because you also need to realize *what*
> update before breaks the scriptlets and that it break all scriptlets
>
> zero chance to figure that out for 99 out of 100 users
>
> you only need to look at the amount
On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 18:48:57 +, Frank Murphy wrote:
> Would a gui yumex\PK have burped at the update?
Yes, because selinux-policy* is a low-level package not specific to Yum.
The policy affects RPM and everything on top of it.
> Would the two testers have seen the script errors.
Only during
On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 20:32:26 +0200, Jonathan Dieter wrote:
> If scriptlet failures weren't fatal, we wouldn't have the problem we
> have now with duplicate packages. We could have just pushed the selinux
> update,
After installing the previous bad update that breaks scriptlets, how would
you act
On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 19:15:35 +0100, drago01 wrote:
> So it happened .. how do we prevent it in the future? How did it pass testing?
A first +1 vote 22 hours _before_ it entered the updates-testing repo.
A second +1 vote eight hours _before_ it entered the updates-testing repo.
A third +1 vote and
> Anyone being familiar with "sunpinyin" please help with this "re-review":
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/1043504
http://bugz.fedoraproject.org/sunpinyin looks bad. There has been
no response to any of the tickets, neither before or after the EOL
warning.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedor
On Sun, 12 Jan 2014 11:16:42 +0100, Jochen Schmitt wrote:
> > There is a growing number of people in the NEEDSPONSOR queue, who have
> > submitted a single package only and who don't attempt at doing a review of
> > a different package in the various queues (not even a review of the own
> > packag
Some thoughts:
http://fedoraproject.org/PackageReviewStatus/NEEDSPONSOR.html
http://fedoraproject.org/PackageReviewStatus/
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group
There is a growing number of people in the NEEDSPONSOR queue, who have
submitted a single pa
On Thu, 9 Jan 2014 14:38:50 -0800, Jorge Gallegos wrote:
> The package may not come back any time soon, and I actually have no idea
> if patching it back from the old sources would be feasible (I haven't
> looked to what extent it is broken.) If it does come back in the future
> I understand it sh
On Thu, 9 Jan 2014 22:20:10 +0100, Alec Leamas wrote:
> Yes, still it's an interesting issue... perhaps one count how many which
> actually are installed,
"Installed and used actively" would be more interesting.
Especially with regard to optional plugins, which perhaps are not
loaded/executed at
On Thu, 9 Jan 2014 12:08:49 -0800, Jorge Gallegos wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I maintain the uwsgi package for fedora, which optionally builds a bunch
> of modules to integrate with several other languages. One of the plugins
> got recently removed upstream but it hasn't got any replacements yet (see
> the
Once again there are some packages, which haven't been retired completely
yet. Check out this Wiki page for the steps that are necessary to get packages
retired properly:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_remove_a_package_at_end_of_life
"Dead" in below output means the packages are marked
Anyone being familiar with "sunpinyin" please help with this "re-review":
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/1043504
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
> Source1:
> http://releases.qt-project.org/qt4/source/qt-everywhere-opensource-src-%{qt_version}.tar.gz
>
> BuildRequires: qt-devel
> BuildRequires: qt-devel-private
> %cmake .
> -DQT_PRIVATE_INCLUDE_DIR=%{_builddir}/qt-everywhere-opensource-src-%{qt_version}/include/QtCore
The packag
On Fri, 13 Dec 2013 22:07:21 -0600, Richard Shaw wrote:
> I maintain two package, OpenImageIO and OpenColorIO, which can optionally
> depend on each other. During the review process I intentionally decided
> that it was more important for OpenImageIO to depend on OpenColorIO as it
> uses the latte
On Thu, 5 Dec 2013 13:23:02 +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> Now I can see that this shouldn't affect any packages that I own.
The original post said "End of August I've opened tickets ...", so if no
such ticket has been opened for any of your packages, you are not
affected. Simple as that.
>
On Thu, 5 Dec 2013 09:45:27 +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>
> You could link to a bug and give an example of a packaging problem.
> Anyway, I give up.
Why so hostile?
If the entire contents of a -doc subpackage are duplicated in the base
package accidentally, that _is_ a packaging problem. Y
On Wed, 4 Dec 2013 21:38:49 +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 04, 2013 at 02:58:47PM +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> > On Wed, 4 Dec 2013 12:08:08 +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> >
> > > I've read this several times, and
> > >
> >
Once again, there are obsolete packages still found in Rawhide. "Obsolete"
here really means they are obsoleted (=replaced!) by some other package.
"Undead" here means they are not marked "dead" in dist git.
Please note that retiring packages is easier nowadays:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_
On Wed, 4 Dec 2013 12:08:08 +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> I've read this several times, and
>
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/UnversionedDocdirs
>
> and I still don't understand what this message means.
My message or a specific bugzilla ticket?
> How would this cause subpackag
On Wed, 04 Dec 2013 00:07:22 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> If you mentioned a list of bugs or at least a shared string from the
> descriptions of all of them, maybe provenpackagers could take some time
> to help out. (Well, I guess we could go digging in your bugzilla
> history, but it seems lik
End of August I've opened tickets about duplicate and potentially
conflicting (because if noarch <-> arch differences) %doc files.
The response from packagers has not been brilliant so far.
These are _package bugs_ specific to Fedora, so it's the responsibility
of a Fedora Packager to fix them. It
On Mon, 2 Dec 2013 15:40:15 -0600, Richard Shaw wrote:
> > "qt-devel" is also a virtual Provides for qt3-devel,
> > and "qt4-devel" is a virtual Provides for qt-devel-4*,
> > so BR qt4-devel or BR qt-devel >= 1:4
>
>
> Yup, using qt4-devel got it... It gets a little confusing when qt-devel on
>
On Mon, 2 Dec 2013 14:14:28 -0600, Richard Shaw wrote:
> I'm working on updating the qsstv package for EL6 and ran into a strange
> issue.
>
> Building for x86_64 worked under mock fine, but when I tried the offical
> build the ppc64 build couldn't find qmake-qt4.
>
> Looking through root.log sh
On Sat, 30 Nov 2013 22:26:17 +0100, Ionuț Arțăriși wrote:
> unittest -- C++ unit testing framework
Cannot find any package in the collection that uses this.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://f
On Fri, 29 Nov 2013 13:26:20 -0700, Eric Smith wrote:
> I'm having a bit of trouble with RPM dependencies. I'm trying to package
> faifa, which manages HomePlug AV interfaces. There's a library (libfaifa)
> and two executables, faifa and hpav_cfg. I'm putting the executables in
> the main packa
On Mon, 25 Nov 2013 22:35:39 +1100, Ankur Sinha wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-11-25 at 12:03 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> > It fails for both Rawhide and F20 in koji's mock, because it tries to
> > download "distribute" (a fork of "setuptools"):
&g
On Mon, 25 Nov 2013 15:30:50 +1100, Ankur Sinha wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Python-tag is broken in F19/20/rawhide. It failed to build during the
> boost 1.54 rebuild for some reason and is therefore in FTBFS for
> rawhide. I checked out the SCM and rebuilt it in mock, both for F20 and
> rawhide, quite succ
On Sat, 23 Nov 2013 16:52:38 -0500, Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
> Can we have an event.h file that conditionally (or maybe even
> unconditionally) #includes the appropriate header file from either
> package? Both packages can then use the same event.h file without
> conflicts.
It would also boil down to
On Mon, 25 Nov 2013 06:33:03 +, Tim Landscheidt wrote:
> So what are Fedora developers /actually/ using? Creating a
> separate GRUB partition and "chainloader"/"configfile"?
Chainloading (via 40_custom) is what I'm still doing with GRUB2, and it
works with different bootloaders, too (unlike
On Sun, 24 Nov 2013 16:50:51 +0100, Sandro Mani wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I wondered what the reason is that debuginfo packages seem to enter the
> repos only at the successive push compared to the regular packages,
> which ultimately means that debuginfo packages are available in updates
> ca 1 day af
On Wed, 20 Nov 2013 11:24:34 +0800, Mathieu Bridon wrote:
> > The current packaging approach is circumventing the packaging policies:
> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:No_Bundled_Libraries
> >
> > perl-EV does not use the system libev. No real "unbundling" has been
> > achieved by repl
On Tue, 19 Nov 2013 21:01:06 +0800, Mathieu Bridon wrote:
> > This one is weird:
> > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/672153
> >
> > In order to make the "perl-EV" package not use a bundled "libev" source,
> > you build a "libev-source" subpackage that perl-EV adds as BuildRequires.
> > In other words
On Tue, 19 Nov 2013 15:30:46 +0800, Mathieu Bridon wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I would like to finally fix this bug in Fedora:
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=985610
>
> Basically, our libev package diverges from upstream in two ways:
>
> 1. we install the header files in /usr/include/li
501 - 600 of 1479 matches
Mail list logo
