On 07/30/2011 07:44 PM, Jussi Lehtola wrote:
Is there a way to check if the gcc version is sufficient with some rpm
macro?
Do you actually need to have it as a macro? Often cases like this can
be handled with plain shell code in %prep, %build, etc. Or by patching
the build system to do the
On 08/20/2011 12:09 AM, Maciej Małecki wrote:
Not worth it, one can always use which to verify if command is gone or
is bash is going mad.
+1
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
On 10/21/2011 07:51 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
If it's being stripped there's probably a good *reason* for it to be
stripped
I'd say its much more likely that they're just trying to save some space
on end user systems where stuff is built from source by users and the
users are too lazy to
On 11/05/2011 07:02 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
The list of packages that need to be rebuilt is attached.
I suggest maintainers take this opportunity to review whether all these
packages really need to be linked against libpng - I'm positive that the
list contains a lot of packages that don't.
On 11/05/2011 11:20 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Sat, 05 Nov 2011 22:02:42 +0100, KK (Kevin) wrote:
Lots of executables end up linked with libpng12 due to other libs (cairo,
gdk-pixbuf2) being linked with it. Neither -lpng12 or -lpng is added
explicitly.
Not due to them being LINKED with
On 11/06/2011 12:26 AM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
Puzzles me. The F-16 build doesn't depend on libpng* directly:
$ rpm -qR geeqie|grep png
$ rpm -q geeqie
geeqie-1.0-13.fc16.x86_64
I noticed a similar thing with gkrellm-volume -- the F-15 build did have
a dependency on it, but the F-16 one
On 11/14/2011 07:57 PM, Adam Jackson wrote:
On Mon, 2011-11-14 at 18:18 +0100, Honza Horak wrote:
Hi,
GNU database indexing library (gdbm) has changed its license to GPLv3+.
A quick scan says this affects:
[...]
ypserv (GPLv2)
This one looks like an incompatibility.
--
devel mailing list
On 11/14/2011 08:59 PM, Adam Jackson wrote:
On Mon, 2011-11-14 at 20:46 +0200, Ville Skyttä wrote:
On 11/14/2011 07:57 PM, Adam Jackson wrote:
On Mon, 2011-11-14 at 18:18 +0100, Honza Horak wrote:
Hi,
GNU database indexing library (gdbm) has changed its license to GPLv3+.
A quick scan says
On 12/03/2011 05:32 PM, Nicoleau Fabien wrote:
So now, F15 and rawhide both have a maintained version, but F16 provides
a quvi that is not maintained. Problems will appear because the websites
handeled by libquvi often change.
[...]
My question is : what must I do ? backport 0.4.x ?
On 12/04/2011 04:00 AM, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
On Sun, Dec 4, 2011 at 12:07 AM, Richard Shaw hobbes1...@gmail.com wrote:
$ echo const int TIXML_MAJOR_VERSION = 2; | sed 's/const int
TIXML_MAJOR_VERSION = \([0-9]+\).*/\1/'
const int TIXML_MAJOR_VERSION = 2;
By replacing (sed 's/../../') with
On Friday 30 July 2010, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 09:49:22AM -0700, Jesse Keating wrote:
That's a good question. fedpkg does not yet have a method for end user
defaults. That's not a quick patch either, but if somebody wants to
work on it, I'll certainly review the
Hello,
I have no regular need to use cvsps any more, so I've released its ownership
in pkgdb for the branches where I was the primary owner. There are co-
maintainers for it, but they did not respond to my mail about whether they'd
like to pick it up earlier this week, so I'm posting here in
commit db9267823b329a0d0e35af84c4f696fcd7d60307
Author: Ville Skyttä ville.sky...@iki.fi
Date: Tue Sep 7 00:21:26 2010 +0300
- Update to 0.65 (#630714).
.gitignore |2 +-
perl-Module-Signature.spec |7 +--
sources|2 +-
3 files changed
On Saturday 09 October 2010, Ankur Sinha wrote:
Does this mean that no other package needs openlayers? If this is the
case, can we update since there won't be any breakages?
If an update is known to break dependent software, it breaks it whether the
affected software is in Fedora or not.
--
On Tuesday 19 October 2010, Cleaver, Japheth wrote:
A ton of this work was already done in initscripts through the use of the
/etc/sysconfig/readonly-root hooks. Isn't that already working well enough
now for that purpose, future systemd changes aside?
Not sure if it's directly related to
On Thursday 21 October 2010, Neal Becker wrote:
Right now I have:
%dir %{python_sitearch}/mercurial
%dir %{python_sitearch}/hgext
I guess owning the parent dirs is not sufficient?
Right.
I could auto-generate a list of directories, but don't know what to do with
it.
Right now, I
On Tuesday 02 November 2010, Stanislav Ochotnicky wrote:
Java SIG has prepared changes in current Java packaging guidelines. We
would welcome wider discussion/comments at this point. From our point of
view guidelines seem ready for approval by FPC.
You can see current version of draft here:
On Wednesday 03 November 2010, Stanislav Ochotnicky wrote:
FYI the versionless jar/javadocs files are now in the draft (thanks for
the suggestion, somehow none of us thought of that)
Thanks for considering it.
But keep those comments coming, we'll try to keep working on the
guidelines to
On Wednesday 03 November 2010, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
Le mercredi 03 novembre 2010 à 19:27 +0200, Ville Skyttä a écrit :
3) In my opinion, the whole alternatives setup in the JRE and SDK
packages should be purged. It's a relic from times that are long gone,
Having a semi-sane way
On Wednesday 03 November 2010, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
Le mercredi 03 novembre 2010 à 21:32 +0200, Ville Skyttä a écrit :
On Wednesday 03 November 2010, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
Le mercredi 03 novembre 2010 à 19:27 +0200, Ville Skyttä a écrit :
3) In my opinion, the whole alternatives setup
On Wednesday 03 November 2010, Alexander Kurtakov wrote:
There is no sane way to make javadoc crosslink in a sane way, i.e. without
patching builds. That's why I would say let's postpone this until we can
tell packagers HOWTO do it.
I'm not against postponing as long as it's not forgotten
On 2012-10-18 11:35, Enrico Scholz wrote:
Hence, the systemd tools should follow Unix/Linux tradition and specialize
on their core functionality and avoid implementing features breaking
user experience. There are other tools like 'less' which are much better
suited for paging program output
On 2012-11-09 18:27, Matthew Miller wrote:
The js package is 6.5MB.
BTW I suppose that could be significantly reduced by linking /usr/bin/js
with the dynamic libmozjs instead of the static one generated during the
build. It seems to take something more than just the attached patch though.
diff
On 2012-11-13 00:46, Rex Dieter wrote:
2. building with -DNDEBUG by default?
Is NDEBUG something commonly found/used in projecets built with cmake?
If so, I think building with it would be generally more desirable than
building without it, because doing the latter might enable extra
debugging
On 2012-12-04 20:30, Jindrich Novy wrote:
On Tue, Dec 04, 2012 at 10:51:17AM -0700, Orion Poplawski wrote:
I'm wondering if it wouldn't be a good idea in the packaging
guidelines to suggest that people list the shared libraries in the
%files section like:
%{_libdir}/libname.so.#*
With the
Hello,
http://bugz.fedoraproject.org/packagename URLs no longer work, they
redirect to https://apps.fedoraproject.org/packages/error which appears
to be some kind of a 404 Not Found page. Known issue?
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
On 2012-12-06 22:12, Ralph Bean wrote:
What package in particular are you trying? For instance,
https://bugz.fedoraproject.org/nethack works for me.
qt, python-zope-interface4 were the ones I tried.
An idea: packages that have do not have rawhide builds are not indexed
by the
On 2013-01-04 22:40, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
gcc-4.8.0-0.1.fc19 on x86_64
I see this in git, but not even a scratch build in koji. Is a build of
the 4.8.0 gcc and friends available somewhere? What about the build logs
of the failed packages?
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
On 2013-01-16 19:45, Ralph Bean wrote:
I put cacheing in place.
That'll probably help some, but does the old pkgdb cache its bugs view?
I suppose it doesn't, and while it's not that fast, its load time is IMO
fast enough.
Also, not actually knowing how often these pages are requested, I have a
On Monday 11 January 2010, Charley Wang wrote:
We also need (and would appreciate help with) the
linking of failed build logs to their package owners.
If you want just an e-mail address per package, use packagename-
ow...@fedoraproject.org. If you want more than that, see /usr/bin/fedoradev-
On Friday 15 January 2010, Jesse Keating wrote:
Alternatives is system wide, but it can be per application.
Per application alternatives, as in alternatives(8)? How?
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
On Saturday 16 January 2010, Till Maas wrote:
On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 11:14:53AM +0200, Ville Skyttä wrote:
On Friday 15 January 2010, Jesse Keating wrote:
Alternatives is system wide, but it can be per application.
Per application alternatives, as in alternatives(8)? How?
If two
On Monday 18 January 2010, Seth Vidal wrote:
On Mon, 18 Jan 2010, Farkas Levente wrote:
the real bottleneck is not the rpmbuild itself (with ccache it cab be
very fast), but the mock surroundings. suppose there is build which
takes about 2 minutes and in mock it takes about 5 minutes:-(
On Monday 18 January 2010, Tony Nelson wrote:
On 10-01-18 11:34:44, Ville Skyttä wrote:
...
So instead of modifying specfiles, one can do something like this in
/etc/mock/site-defaults.cfg:
config_opts['macros']['%_smp_mflags'] = '-j3'
Unless `rpmbuild --showrc` shows a bad
On Tuesday 19 January 2010, Leigh Scott wrote:
At the moment I am unable to build qbittorrent and torium (springlobby
as well) at Koji due to broken deps.
I have emailed Peter and requested commit rights for the devel branch
but received no response.
Maybe he's still offline?
On Friday 22 January 2010, Steve Grubb wrote:
On Friday 22 January 2010 01:30:11 pm Richard Zidlicky wrote:
so one of the next steps might also be to allow some filesystems to be
read-only? Can be done manually of course but most of the time I am too
lazy to do that.
That makes yum
On Wednesday 03 February 2010, Matthew Saltzman wrote:
On Tue, 2010-02-02 at 19:16 -0500, Matthias Clasen wrote:
On Tue, 2010-02-02 at 19:04 -0500, Matthew Saltzman wrote:
I work on another open-source project that is considering using
pkg-config, and we are trying to establish standards.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=562316
Why did this bug end up in the FTBFS list? I don't think rpmdevtools has
actually failed to build from source according to the logs available right
now, this bug has nothing directly to do with FTBFS (or at least nothing that
a script could
On Tuesday 23 February 2010, Iain Arnell wrote:
On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 4:09 AM, Jay Hankinson
* Current build process uses $ORIGIN for relative RPATH linking.
This one is slightly trickier. Using rpath for system libraries is
absolutely forbidden. But packaging guidelines has
On Friday 26 February 2010, Till Maas wrote:
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 01:12:53PM -0500, James Antill wrote:
On Fri, 2010-02-26 at 17:14 +0100, Till Maas wrote:
Also repoquery returns F12 results but accepts --releasever:
$ repoquery --releasever=rawhide --repoid=fedora kernel
On Saturday 27 February 2010, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Rakesh Pandit wrote:
About new package point, what about the negative impact of newly
pushed package on distribution as a whole if it breaks to launch or
crashes in some event(produced in some essential functionality) and
was missed by
On Saturday 27 February 2010, Kevin Kofler wrote:
If they Obsolete something else, then they're not really new packages.
I that's the blanket generalization I read it as, I don't agree with it, but
meh.
Well, true, new packages which Provide some common virtual Provides like
On Monday 08 March 2010, Peter Lemenkov wrote:
Hello All!
I just found that many java-related packages have packaging issues,
and one of them draws my attention - explicit Requires: %{name} =
%{version}-%{release} in some *-javadoc packages. Since my java
experience is rather small, I would
On Monday 08 March 2010, Chen Lei wrote:
Requiring Base Package
Devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned
dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}. Usually,
subpackages other than -devel should also require the base package using a
fully versioned
On Friday 19 March 2010, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 06:47:44PM +0200, Ville Skyttä wrote:
On Friday 19 March 2010, Jon Ciesla wrote:
ServerError(https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/acls/name/barrage/Fed
ora/ 13, 500, Unknown HTTP Server Response)
This is while
On Wednesday 31 March 2010, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Sat, 2010-03-27 at 11:44 +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Sat, Mar 27, 2010 at 05:36:29AM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Hi,
Nvidia has announced that they are deprecating it
On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 6:40 PM, Susi Lehtola
jussileht...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
investigating the FTBFS of ddrescue I noticed that upstream has
switched to releasing tarballs only in .lz compressed format. This is
currently not supported by rpmbuild.
Sure it is, at least in F-18+. It'll
On Sat, Sep 7, 2013 at 6:49 AM, David Beveridge d...@bevhost.com wrote:
On Sat, Sep 7, 2013 at 12:18 AM, Richard Vickery
richard.vicker...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sep 5, 2013 7:12 PM, David Beveridge d...@bevhost.com wrote:
nor me. But I can just adjust the brightness on each boot with a 2
On Fri, Oct 4, 2013 at 8:29 PM, Alexey I. Froloff ra...@raorn.name wrote:
On Fri, Oct 04, 2013 at 10:21:02AM -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
What tool were you using for download?
spectool -g *.spec
Which uses curl do download files...
Current one does. But the one Kevin used for this run on
On Sun, Oct 6, 2013 at 7:27 AM, Sérgio Basto ser...@serjux.com wrote:
we still doesn't have rpmdevtools-8.4 packaged for F21 ...
I'll look into it as soon as it starts to look that devscripts will be approved.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
On Mon, Oct 7, 2013 at 3:32 AM, Sérgio Basto ser...@serjux.com wrote:
On Dom, 2013-10-06 at 11:46 +0300, Ville Skyttä wrote:
On Sun, Oct 6, 2013 at 7:27 AM, Sérgio Basto ser...@serjux.com wrote:
we still doesn't have rpmdevtools-8.4 packaged for F21 ...
I'll look into it as soon
On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 3:08 PM, Michael Schwendt mschwe...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, 21 Oct 2013 04:01:15 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
We already have one, it's called %{__global_ldflags}. You are indeed
supposed to set LDFLAGS of handwritten makefiles to that. The guidelines
need to be
On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 1:47 PM, Michael Schwendt mschwe...@gmail.com wrote:
Better would be that
the Makefile inherits from values passed in via Make or the env.
Sure.
%configure || :
[...]
To repeat from the earlier reply, one may want to take precautions,
so when a future upgrade adds
On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 8:22 PM, Sandro Mani manisan...@gmail.com wrote:
In cases where a package ships a service.tmpfiles file which manages i.e.
the /var/run/service directory, what is the best way to make sure that the
directory exists after installing the package, without rebooting the
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 2:07 AM, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote:
The koji builders are usually faster than your system anyway
Maybe, if building only a specific arch (e.g. koji build
--arch-override=x86_64). The arm builders tend to be quite slow in the
first place, and I don't think
On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 2:17 PM, Jaroslav Reznik jrez...@redhat.com wrote:
For bonus points, we ought to tell file and rpmlint about the new bytecode
format for .pyc files.
rpmlint 1.5 already knows the 3.4 bytecode magic value, but an old
one. Fixed/updated in git:
On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 2:09 PM, Stanislav Ochotnicky
sochotni...@redhat.com wrote:
Quoting Jaroslav Reznik (2013-11-15 12:28:11)
* (optional) Mass-change spec files that have Requires: java to Requires:
java-headless
Other developers:
* Modify spec files to have Requires: java-headless
On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 3:22 PM, Stanislav Ochotnicky
sochotni...@redhat.com wrote:
http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/jing-trang.git/commit/?id=6d46e64fe0f365a947c7095adaf65e8cc2c90d5b
Ugh. Why did you have to do that?
Huh, wow, that's not at all the response I was expecting. What did you
On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 5:54 PM, Kevin Fenzi ke...@scrye.com wrote:
- I didn't explicitly mention it last time, but you can find the output
of the script for your package at:
http://www.scrye.com/~kevin/fedora/sourcecheck-20131117/$packagename-dl.txt
That should be
On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 10:58 AM, Germán A. Racca
german.ra...@gmail.com wrote:
What should I do with this [*]? Report upstream?
I can successfully download the tarball from Firefox, but using spectool
gives that error.
[*]
curl: (60) Peer's Certificate issuer is not recognized.
More
On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 11:50 AM, Ville Skyttä ville.sky...@iki.fi wrote:
I think I'll make spectool tell curl not to verify SSL certs by default in
the next release.
https://git.fedorahosted.org/cgit/rpmdevtools.git/commit/?id=363b0d5bbd92e2cac2a9ba632af54e303ffc491d
--
devel mailing list
On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 6:44 PM, Till Maas opensou...@till.name wrote:
On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 11:50:17AM +0200, Ville Skyttä wrote:
I think I'll make spectool tell curl not to verify SSL certs by
default in the next release. If you want it already now for your local
spectool, do for example
On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 4:53 PM, Björn Persson
bj...@xn--rombobjrn-67a.se wrote:
Ville Skyttä wrote:
spectool is not a source verification tool nor a certificate
validation one, and I'm not going to help people get the misconception
that it might be something like that.
So how do you think
On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 2:51 AM, Björn Persson
bj...@xn--rombobjrn-67a.se wrote:
[...HTTPS stuff...]
I think I've made my opinion clear already, won't parrot it and waste
people's time any more. Just read my previous mails again in response
to your latest questions.
--
devel mailing list
On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 3:45 PM, Phil Knirsch pknir...@redhat.com wrote:
Famous last words: Can't be that hard to write a script that compares 2
builds that they provide the have the same provides and requires and
filelists. :)
Try /usr/bin/rpmdiff first...
--
devel mailing list
Hello,
Mostly to test some rpmlint things, I ran it on the rawhide mock
chroot after installing the @gnome-desktop group in it. I'll be
pushing and building various trivial fixes to a bunch of packages from
those findings in the near future.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 7:30 AM, Rahul Sundaram methe...@gmail.com wrote:
I ended up running scan-build from clang-analyzer and found
more memory leaks, null pointer deferences and other issues that cppcheck
doesn't find. I am going to try and send in some patches if I can.
Me too. In many
On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 6:38 PM, Rahul Sundaram methe...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi
On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 8:58 AM, Ville Skyttä wrote:
By the way, I also took a look into how scan-build could be run in
mock builds without modifying the source packages at all, and with
minimal mock config
Hello,
Should the automated pre-F-14 gcc bug #634757 related rebuilds have been
included in F-14? It seems that at least the ccache build did not make it.
The build, 3.1-1.fc14.1, is in koji, but there's no entry for it in Bodhi, and
F-14 has 3.1-1.fc14.
On Wednesday 17 November 2010, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Ville Skyttä wrote:
I'd get rid of the versioned javadoc dir altogether, and simply install
to %{_javadocdir}/%{name}. Unversioned is good for bookmarking and
javadoc crosslinking.
One thing you have to be careful of, no matter which
On Thursday 18 November 2010, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Does this even need %pretrans at all? Rex Dieter used this in kde-settings-
kdm:
%pre kdm
## KDM fixup(s)
# [snip similar hack for a moved/symlinked %config file]
# handle %%_datadir/config/kdm - /etc/kde/kdm
[ -d %{_datadir}/config/kdm -a
On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 4:23 PM, Tom spot Callaway
tcall...@redhat.com wrote:
The Java Packaging Guidelines have been revised:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java
Diff:
https://fedoraproject.org/w/index.php?title=Packaging%3AJavadiff=206526oldid=154023
It seems that the
On Sunday 21 November 2010, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Ville Skyttä wrote:
It probably did, and because the above is related to config files,
leaving behind *.rpmorig is quite appropriate IMO. But leaving such
cruft behind is not that fine for non-config files.
Well, instead of a mv to rpmorig
On Sunday 21 November 2010, Michał Piotrowski wrote:
Hi,
I would like to help with scripts conversion. IMO the conversion
action should be coordinated.
Comments, thoughts?
Sure. But just in case by coordination you happen imply that a small team of
volunteers would be doing the grunt
On Friday 19 November 2010, Stanislav Ochotnicky wrote:
Ville: The jpackage_script macro is great and we'll be adding it to the
documentation. You are welcome to add it to [1], since I think you know
most about it so a few lines describing how it works would be best.
Done,
On Wednesday 24 November 2010, Jesse Keating wrote:
ccache - my build can be tagged
I'll most likely push an update to ccache soon so no need to tag this one.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
On Thursday 09 December 2010, Tom Callaway wrote:
The guidelines have been updated to indicate that %doc files must not
have executable permissions.
Why? If they (example scripts etc) don't add any dependencies that aren't
already in the package's dependency chain, what is the problem solved
A file has been added to the lookaside cache for perl-CSS-DOM:
19199828ac5c7b0d6565a81c0e459249 CSS-DOM-0.14.tar.gz
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
perl-devel mailing list
perl-de...@lists.fedoraproject.org
commit daf4201e6f52cc5f77e44986f82a9e73707ea37b
Author: Ville Skyttä ville.sky...@iki.fi
Date: Mon Dec 13 18:03:23 2010 +0200
- Update to 0.14.
.gitignore|2 +-
perl-CSS-DOM.spec |9 ++---
sources |2 +-
3 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 5 deletions
The lightweight tag 'perl-CSS-DOM-0.14-1.fc15' was created pointing to:
daf4201... - Update to 0.14.
--
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
On Saturday 11 December 2010, Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
could you folks add an rpmlint check that
spits a warning for executable %doc files?
rpmlint already does and has done for a long time even better than that: it
not only issues exactly those warnings (spurious-executable-perm), but it also
On Wednesday 15 December 2010, Jon Masters wrote:
On Wed, 2010-12-15 at 22:25 +0200, Ville Skyttä wrote:
Files marked as documentation must not cause additional dependencies
that aren't satisfied by the package itself or its dependency chain as
it would be if none of its files marked
On Thursday 16 December 2010, Jon Masters wrote:
On Wed, 2010-12-15 at 23:57 +0200, Ville Skyttä wrote:
But how many packages nowadays require a man page reader simply because
they install man pages?
Well, since it's a guideline, it's worth discussion. Sure there's only
18 in your list
On 02/04/2011 07:18 PM, Tom Callaway wrote:
A new section has been added to the Packaging Guidelines concerning the
proper packaging of tmpfiles.d configurations and directories:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Tmpfiles.d
That page notes that tmpfiles.d is not supported in EL-5 or
On 02/12/2011 05:14 AM, Rawhide Report wrote:
perl-CSS-DOM-0.14-3.fc15.noarch requires perl()
http://rpm.org/ticket/821
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
On 02/12/2011 05:25 PM, Hans Ulrich Niedermann wrote:
This leaves the following as the one remaining package requiring
gdk-pixbuf:
xosd-2.2.14-13.fc12.src.rpm
Dropping the xmms plugin from there would get rid of the dependency.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
On 02/13/2011 07:00 PM, Björn Persson wrote:
Is there any particular reason why Mock can't work when /var/cache/mock is
bind-mounted?
I have a relatively small flash drive for the root filesystem and a big disk
mounted on /disk/data. To avoid filling the flash drive I bind-mounted
On 02/21/2011 11:13 AM, Andreas Schwab wrote:
Stanislav Ochotnicky sochotni...@redhat.com writes:
On 02/16/2011 04:58 PM, Andreas Schwab wrote:
That does not mean that the compressed contents will always be the same.
$ git clone -q git://github.com/sonatype/sisu
$ GIT_DIR=sisu/.git git
On 02/21/2011 11:36 AM, Panu Matilainen wrote:
A more likely candidate for new dependencies appearing is that rpm now
collects dependencies from perl's use base qw syntax, which older
versions did not.
Another one which will result in more dependencies than before is a
here-doc related fix;
On 02/24/2011 10:33 AM, Radek Vokál wrote:
Thanks Karel, I vote for opening bugs for all of these. Especially those
which are ELF stripped might even have wrong compiler flags.
See also https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=DebugInfo
These have been caught by debugrepo-check [1] which
On 03/08/2011 06:46 PM, Miroslav Lichvar wrote:
Hi,
guile-2.0.0 has been released, there are some important changes.
- The license changed from LGPLv2+ to LGPLv3+.
[...]
Repoquery lists these packages as using libguile:
[...]
Looks like that could cause some licensing issues:
$ repoquery
On 03/13/2011 09:39 PM, Christoph Wickert wrote:
Am Montag, den 14.03.2011, 01:10 +0530 schrieb Ankur Sinha:
On Sun, 2011-03-13 at 20:15 +0100, Dominic Hopf wrote:
Anyway, I still find it the best tool for editing MP3 tags around, so,
is there any reason to not maintain it anymore from
On 03/16/2011 08:40 PM, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
Just curious. I have a Intel SSDSA2M080G2GC for a while now but was not
bold enough yet to give discard on Ext4 a try.
I use discard with my Intel G2 SSDs on Btrfs in a RAID0 configuration
(2.6.37 kernel). I have
On 03/24/2011 06:52 AM, John Reiser wrote:
they say on Debian and Ubuntu,
all shared libs have 0644 permissions.
What they say is incorrect.
I have Ubuntu 10.10 i686:
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 1421892 2011-01-21 15:08 /lib/libc-2.12.1.so
[...snip more libc examples...]
libc is probably a
On 03/22/2011 06:15 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
The Fedora 15 Test Day schedule continues to roll, and this week it's
the turn of power management:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Day:2011-03-24
I would like to participate but the live CD .iso (linked to in the above
page) downloads at
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=627032
There is an (unofficial) ongoing review for my w3c-linkchecker
submission, but for the reasons outlined there, I'm not going to finish
the review process as the submitter nor will be maintaining it in
Fedora. Feel free to pick it up as the
On 04/11/2011 10:15 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 13:59:11 -0500, Jon wrote:
repoquery --whatrequires foo, which could be a name of an RPM, or a
solib name, like libfoo.so.0.
Note that --alldeps option is the default for some time, so if you
really want foo to be a name
commit b7202fa520dd07814309c5db7aa49c45cb29062d
Author: Ville Skyttä ville.sky...@iki.fi
Date: Tue Apr 19 21:56:41 2011 +0300
Appease rpmbuild = 4.9.
perl-Module-Signature.spec |8 ++--
1 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
---
diff --git a/perl-Module-Signature.spec b
On 05/01/2011 09:46 AM, Eric Smith wrote:
package: clapham-0.1.003-4.el6.noarch from fedora-epel-testing-6-ppc64
unresolved deps:
java= 1:1.6.0
This is not an answer to your question, but if the above is exactly as
is from the mail you received, something needs a fix: the dependency
On 05/02/2011 01:48 AM, David Timms wrote:
The -manual package can be used by either audacity or
audacity-freeworld. At the moment the manual spec marks up the
datadair/audacity folder and hence dually owns it with audacity if that
is installed. Reading the packaging examples, seems that
1 - 100 of 376 matches
Mail list logo
