Here are the list of recent changes to the Fedora Packaging Guidelines:
D Packaging Guidelines have been added:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:D
---
The Java Packaging Guidelines have been revised:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java
Diff:
Here are the list of this week's changes to the Fedora Packaging Guidelines:
The FPC has taken over evaluating exceptions to the Bundled Library
Guidelines. A list of standard questions to be answered to give the FPC
information on whether to grant exceptions has been added to the
Guidelines:
On 11/17/2010 03:45 PM, mike cloaked wrote:
Just a thought - but for those users who use chrome/chromium as prime
browser where flash is part of the deal
Flash is only bundled in Google's Chrome builds, not in the FOSS
Chromium code.
~spot
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Here are the list of recent changes to the Fedora Packaging Guidelines:
D Packaging Guidelines have been added:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:D
---
The Java Packaging Guidelines have been revised:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java
Diff:
Here are the list of this week's changes to the Fedora Packaging Guidelines:
The FPC has taken over evaluating exceptions to the Bundled Library
Guidelines. A list of standard questions to be answered to give the FPC
information on whether to grant exceptions has been added to the
Guidelines:
On 11/12/2010 12:09 PM, Josef Bacik wrote:
Another criteria I have for making it default is I want grub support,
specifically grub2. So until grub2 is in Fedora and we have btrfs
patches upstream in grub2 I have no intention of making it the default
in Fedora. Thanks,
Grub2 has been in
On 11/12/2010 03:58 PM, Eric Sandeen wrote:
On 11/12/2010 02:55 PM, Tom spot Callaway wrote:
On 11/12/2010 12:09 PM, Josef Bacik wrote:
Another criteria I have for making it default is I want grub support,
specifically grub2. So until grub2 is in Fedora and we have btrfs
patches upstream
On 11/02/2010 12:13 PM, Matthias Clasen wrote:
On Tue, 2010-11-02 at 11:33 -0400, Tom spot Callaway wrote:
Matthias, this seems like it will break the python bindings... will you
be fixing them at the same time?
I can certainly not do it all by myself. At least not in one day...
Looking
On 10/30/2010 06:01 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 02:24:02AM -0400, Jon Stanley wrote:
I noticed on my Fedora 13 box that in the RPM macro %__global_cflags
that -frecord-gcc-switches is missing, which is a nifty compiler
feature that will record the flags passed to gcc
On 10/27/2010 01:30 PM, Julian Aloofi wrote:
Am Mittwoch, den 27.10.2010, 17:37 +0100 schrieb Richard W.M. Jones:
On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 11:27:07AM -0500, Chris Adams wrote:
Once upon a time, Michał Piotrowski mkkp...@gmail.com said:
I visited fedoraproject.org site to visit Fedora Project
On 10/24/2010 01:25 PM, Garrett Holmstrom wrote:
qtgpsc-0.2.3-6.fc12.x86_64 requires libgps.so.18()(64bit)
rakudo-0.0.2010.08_2.7.0-1.fc14.x86_64 requires
libparrot.so.2.7.0()(64bit)
Any chance these are going to be fixed before release?
I looked at qtgpsc, but that's unlikely to
On 09/24/2010 01:32 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
The rpm changelog should be more like NEWS than a changelog; and usually
a summary of NEWS, at that. (imho, no packaging guidelines currently
mandate this, etc.)
I could swear I had written don't copy the upstream changelog into the
rpm
On 09/09/2010 12:30 AM, Iain Arnell wrote:
It looks like the nss-3.12.8-0.1.beta1.fc13 in spot's firefox4 repo is
breaking fedpkg upload (and new-sources, of course) when you have a
shiny new 2048-bit client certificate.
Yep. I fixed it last night, if you update to the new packages in that
On 09/02/2010 02:53 AM, Brendan Jones wrote:
On 09/02/2010 04:39 PM, Eelko Berkenpies wrote:
Tom Spot Callaway also has a very nice dedicated repository for
Firefox 4; http://repos.fedorapeople.org/repos/spot/
I personally prefer this one because it doesn't pull in other updates
from
On 08/28/2010 05:37 PM, Till Maas wrote:
With the FPCA, the board could relicense everything. But RedHat appoints
the board chair, who has veto power. If this is right, then this could
be changed by making the chair seat another normal seat, that is voted
for by the community and make the
On 08/27/2010 02:22 PM, Mark Chappell wrote:
On 27/08/2010, Till Maas opensou...@till.name wrote:
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 06:56:33PM +0100, Mark Chappell wrote:
I should point out that if NM gained a CLI so that I could do
something like that then I wouldn't mind the old RH scripts going
On 08/24/2010 03:53 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Tue, 24.08.10 14:59, Matthew Miller (mat...@mattdm.org) wrote:
The service command has a syntax like this:
service servicename action
where as systemctl has a syntax like this:
systemctl action servicename.service
This is
On 08/06/2010 10:16 AM, James Laska wrote:
620211 :: NEW :: python-psyco :: kon...@tylerc.org :: python-psyco needs
porting to python 2.7 in F14 and devel ::
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=620211
Does anything actually depend on this?
~spot
--
devel mailing list
On 08/05/2010 12:59 PM, John Poelstra wrote:
597858 [NEW - high - dwa...@redhat.com - --- -] SELinux is preventing
firefox from making its memory writable and executable. crashes rawhide
firefox start
The update to fix this one out is here:
Hi packagers (and proventesters)
I've made an update to tzdata to 2010k, this handles the fact that Egypt
will move out of DST during Ramadan this year (August 10, 2010 -
September 9, 2010).
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/tzdata-2010k-1.fc12
On 08/01/2010 12:55 PM, Julian Sikorski wrote:
W dniu 30.07.2010 17:28, Tom spot Callaway pisze:
On 07/30/2010 11:10 AM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
On 07/30/2010 03:16 AM, Mike McGrath wrote:
So I just created:
http://repos.fedorapeople.org/
Anyone want to help me test the steps and process
On 07/29/2010 05:46 PM, Mike McGrath wrote:
On Wed, 28 Jul 2010, Mike McGrath wrote:
Maybe baby steps? Small incremental changes. Sure some features will be
missing that kopers will provide. But perhaps we could just create a
Fedora-13-devel tag in koji, push it to it's own repo or to
On 07/30/2010 11:10 AM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
On 07/30/2010 03:16 AM, Mike McGrath wrote:
So I just created:
http://repos.fedorapeople.org/
Anyone want to help me test the steps and process before we announce and
deploy it? Anyone already got Firefox 4 built for F13 for example? Let
me
On 07/30/2010 11:53 AM, drago01 wrote:
Not even with a note like
The fedora project has no control about this repos use at your own
risk etc. pp ?
No. Not even with a note like that.
~spot
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
On 07/28/2010 06:11 PM, Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 4:58 PM, Tom spot Callaway wrote:
Fedora just can't
include ffmpeg for obvious reasons,
How many more years are we talking about for ffmpeg?
Speaking of which, when can we include a mp3 decoder library in
Fedora? I
On 07/29/2010 02:04 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:
Over 10K repos have been converted, but I do have to run a script over
those repos and make sure the conversion actually succeeded. We've
also gotten dist-f14, dist-f13, dist-f12, and el6 in a state that we can
build with, however we do have to do
On 07/29/2010 02:25 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:
Option C:
fedpkg clone -B libfoo
cd libfoo/f13/
This doesn't seem to work... perhaps because of the transition?
http://fpaste.org/FV5g/
If I can get this working, I'd be willing to help write wiki pages. :)
~spot
--
devel mailing list
On 07/28/2010 04:47 PM, Conan Kudo (ニール・ゴンパ) wrote:
On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 2:16 PM, drago01 drag...@gmail.com
mailto:drag...@gmail.com wrote:
No disagreement here ... in fact this is a not really a baby step
but have something usable and start from there which makes a lot of
On 07/19/2010 05:42 PM, M A Young wrote:
On Wed, 7 Jul 2010, Tom spot Callaway wrote:
[xen-maint] xen: xen-doc-4.0.0-2.fc14.x86_64
xen-libs-4.0.0-2.fc14.x86_64 xen-hypervisor-4.0.0-2.fc14.x86_64
I am a co-maintainer of the xen package, and I am trying to work out what
the best way
On 07/26/2010 02:53 PM, Chen Lei wrote:
2010/7/27 Tom spot Callaway tcall...@redhat.com:
On 07/19/2010 05:42 PM, M A Young wrote:
On Wed, 7 Jul 2010, Tom spot Callaway wrote:
[xen-maint] xen: xen-doc-4.0.0-2.fc14.x86_64
xen-libs-4.0.0-2.fc14.x86_64 xen-hypervisor-4.0.0-2.fc14.x86_64
I am
I hit a new dependency when building perl-Mail-Box for EPEL, and I could
use a quick package review of perl-File-FcntlLock (its a teeny tiny perl
package). Will happily trade reviews.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=614008
~spot
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
On 07/08/2010 05:35 PM, Paul wrote:
Hi,
[pfj] xmms: 1:xmms-libs-1.2.11-11.20071117cvs.fc14.x86_64
Unless something very odd is going on here, xmms-libs does have the
COPYING file included (just checked the spec file).
Could it be that there is a problem with the build sys on x86_64
On 07/09/2010 10:25 AM, Caolán McNamara wrote:
On Wed, 2010-07-07 at 16:29 -0400, Tom spot Callaway wrote:
Okay. Here's the list of packages that I think might be affected by
this. Reminder: You need to check these packages and fix any which need
fixing, then email me and let me know which
On 07/09/2010 11:32 AM, seth vidal wrote:
On Fri, 2010-07-09 at 11:25 -0400, Tom spot Callaway wrote:
On 07/08/2010 05:35 PM, Paul wrote:
Hi,
[pfj] xmms: 1:xmms-libs-1.2.11-11.20071117cvs.fc14.x86_64
Unless something very odd is going on here, xmms-libs does have the
COPYING file included
On 07/07/2010 06:08 PM, Matt Domsch wrote:
cim-schema-docs has no license file packaged with it. /me blames the
DMTF. The content is a separate tarball. I suppose we could suck the
license file out of the other content zip (the MOF files) and include
here. Thoughts?
If the appropriate
On 07/07/2010 10:49 PM, Juan Rodriguez wrote:
On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 3:29 PM, Tom spot Callaway tcall...@redhat.com
mailto:tcall...@redhat.com wrote:
[nushio] rabbitvcs: rabbitvcs-core-0.13.3-1.fc14.noarch
I'm not very well versed in legalese, but rabbitvcs-core does include
On 07/08/2010 03:07 AM, Till Maas wrote:
On Wed, Jul 07, 2010 at 04:29:01PM -0400, Tom spot Callaway wrote:
However, if a subpackage is independent of any base package (it does
not require it, either implicitly or explicitly), it must include
copies of any license texts (as present
On 07/08/2010 03:44 AM, Caolán McNamara wrote:
On Wed, 2010-07-07 at 16:29 -0400, Tom spot Callaway wrote:
Basically, what this means is this: If you maintain a package, and that
package generates subpackages, then each subpackage must either include
a copy of the appropriate licensing texts
On 07/08/2010 03:52 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
Can you elaborate the cases below?
I can't spot anything wrong with them:
[corsepiu] gtkglext: gtkglext-libs-1.2.0-10.fc12.x86_64
# repoquery -ql 'gtkglext-libs'
...
/usr/share/doc/gtkglext-libs-1.2.0/AUTHORS
On 07/08/2010 04:12 AM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Wed, 07 Jul 2010 16:29:01 -0400, Tom wrote:
However, if a subpackage is independent of any base package (it does
not require it, either implicitly or explicitly), it must include
copies of any license texts (as present in the source)
On 07/08/2010 04:39 AM, Ankur Sinha wrote:
Can you please clarify this one? The sub packages depend on the -common,
which has the LICENSE etc. docs. Is this because the main package
doesn't Requires: -common?
Caveat: I have not looked at your specific spec, so I am hypothesizing here.
Lets
On 07/08/2010 10:37 AM, Chen Lei wrote:
Dose this mean we only need to add license text to -libs subpackage
instead of base package if we assume the base package depends on -libs
subpackage?
If the base package depends on -libs subpackage, then you can only put
the license text in -libs.
On 07/08/2010 12:09 PM, Matthias Clasen wrote:
On Wed, 2010-07-07 at 16:29 -0400, Tom spot Callaway wrote:
Q. I thought duplicating files in a spec was forbidden?
A. This is a permitted exception to that.
Can we get this new exception reflected in the packaging and review
guidelines
On 06/29/2010 08:12 PM, Jay Hankinson wrote:
Hello Fedora Devs,
I'm currently going through the pre-review process for adding Ingres to
the Fedora distribution
(https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=578024). I'm getting some
conflicting information for a couple of issues and I was
On 06/21/2010 12:05 PM, Paul Wouters wrote:
On Mon, 21 Jun 2010, Tomas Mraz wrote:
I would be great if we could change the spec file to have a proper flag
to enable/disable GOST/ECC so that people can easilly rebuild with GOST
support if they need to (and it is legal for them). Would that be
On 06/11/2010 05:45 PM, Frank Murphy wrote:
On 11/06/10 17:54, Patrick Monnerat wrote:
Today, a candle burns on php-captchaphp review request's 1st birthday
cake: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=505354
Everyone who wants to celebrate is kindly invited there :-)
--snip--
On 06/03/2010 10:35 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Tom spot Callaway wrote:
You might feel that way, but the simple fact is that French citizens can
not abandon copyright (aka put works into the Public Domain). This is
the only license that we've been given, but since it is not valid, we
can't use
On 06/04/2010 12:26 PM, Matěj Cepl wrote:
Dne 3.6.2010 21:09, Tom spot Callaway napsal(a):
You might feel that way, but the simple fact is that French citizens can
not abandon copyright (aka put works into the Public Domain).
Do we have some better authority on this than Wikipedia? In my
R 2.11.1 is built now for Fedora and EPEL. It is in updates-testing
(or it will be within the next 24 hours).
It will likely be the last R update for Fedora 11.
In accordance with the new policies on Fedora Updates, these new
packages will not be pushed as official updates until they either
On 06/03/2010 10:33 AM, Xose Vazquez Perez wrote:
On 06/01/2010 05:09 PM, Tom spot Callaway wrote:
On 05/29/2010 07:25 PM, Xose Vazquez Perez wrote:
JBoss[1] is still a *big* deficit. Potential for f14/15 ?
I'm pretty sure JBoss is still a no-go because of poor licensing,
specifically
On 06/03/2010 11:54 AM, Iain Arnell wrote:
On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 5:13 PM, Michel Alexandre Salim
michael.silva...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 4:50 PM, Tom spot Callaway tcall...@redhat.com
wrote:
This is true (well, the problem is that there is no applicable and valid
license
On 06/03/2010 02:31 PM, Alex Hudson wrote:
If everyone else is distributing JBoss, though, that calls into question
whether it's Fedora doing it properly.
Worrying about a set of rights which are unwaivable seems on the face of
it to be exhibiting an abundance of over-caution, and it seems
On 06/03/2010 03:24 PM, Alex Hudson wrote:
That's not the argument I'm putting forward.
The French cannot waive copyright argument brings you to the
conclusion you stated; [The license] is not valid, we can't use it.
That same argument holds, as far as I can see, for every other
window is open until June 4,
2010 (2010-06-04). After that point, either another revised FPCA will be
released for review, or we will begin the process of phasing in the FPCA
and phasing out the Fedora ICLA.
Thanks in advance,
Tom spot Callaway, Fedora Legal
On 05/18/2010 10:12 AM, Paul wrote:
Hi,
For quite a while the packaging of monodevelop has patched using the
supplied version of mono.cecil with the one found in gac (which
according to the mono bods, isn't the right place for it - it is a work
in progress so should not be considered
On 05/18/2010 02:48 PM, Paul wrote:
Hi,
As the new MD relies on a version of Mono.Cecil which is newer than the
version in gac is it permissible to ship MD-2.4 with this newer version?
The version in gac remains untouched by this new version so other
applications reliant on the old version
On 05/18/2010 05:38 PM, Paul wrote:
Hi,
And to add further problems - guess what the version number is for
mono-cecil bundled with MD? And they're not the same
I'm going to guess that it is either undefined or less than the 0.6.90
version that the system mono.cecil has...
Reports as
On 05/10/2010 04:01 AM, Zoltan Boszormenyi wrote:
I guess the legal problem(s) may come from the fact that
newer Wine has cut out its own MP3 decoder and instead,
it uses dlopened libmpg123. How does it differ from the
DVD playing situation? Xine, MPlayer, etc. uses libdvdcss
via dlopen if
On 04/26/2010 09:35 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
* The Fedora Mozilla packages can't be bug-fixed/patched.
Cause: The package is non-free.
* The Fedora Mozilla package can't be made compliant to the FPG.
Cause the packages are non-free.
Neither of these are true.
The Fedora Mozilla packages
On 04/23/2010 11:37 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
On behalf of Nigel Jones, I'm letting people know that the following
packages have been orphaned:
* R-DBI -- Database interface module for R
* R-RSQLite -- SQLite database interface for R
Got these two.
~spot
--
devel mailing list
R 2.11.0 is built now for Fedora and EPEL. It is in updates-testing.
In accordance with the new policies on Fedora Updates, these new
packages will not be pushed as official updates until they either
receive positive testing from users, or sit in updates-testing for two
weeks.
You can help us
On 04/22/2010 04:32 AM, Mary Ellen Foster wrote:
On 21 April 2010 17:17, Deepak Bhole dbh...@redhat.com wrote:
I have orphaned the following packages in Fedora. Some of these are
core Java packages -- I don't have time to maintain them anymore and
would rather that someone more active take
Sadly, I am facing a task which exceeds my very meager C++ skills.
I own a package called esperanza, which is a QT4 xmms2 client written
in C++. With the latest xmms2 update (0.7DrNo, not yet built or pushed
to any branch, but checked into rawhide CVS), the esperanza client no
longer works (it
the Fedora ICLA.
Thanks in advance,
Tom spot Callaway, Fedora Legal
P.S. Fedora Legal would like to give a huge thank you to the people
involved behind the scenes to make the FPCA possible. The primary author
was Richard Fontana, with feedback from Tom Callaway, Pamela Chestek,
Paul Frields, and Robert
the Fedora ICLA.
Thanks in advance,
Tom spot Callaway, Fedora Legal
P.S. Fedora Legal would like to give a huge thank you to the people
involved behind the scenes to make the FPCA possible. The primary author
was Richard Fontana, with feedback from Tom Callaway, Pamela Chestek,
Paul Frields, and Robert
On 03/22/2010 04:33 PM, Léon Keijser wrote:
Hi,
I'm trying to create a package [1], and run into a slight problem when
running rpmlint on the resulting rpm:
$ rpmlint -i googsystray-1.1.4-2.fc12.noarch.rpm
googsystray.noarch: E: explicit-lib-dependency python-xlib
You must let rpm find
On 03/17/2010 12:56 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Tom spot Callaway wrote:
- link fixes. Really, these libraries should be linked properly so they
don't need the executable linking calls to be explicitly correct, but
cmake gives me a headache.
You can use target_link_libraries on a shared library
%changelog
* Tue Mar 16 2010 Tom spot Callaway tcall...@redhat.com 2010.03.14-2.rev2462
- link fixes. Really, these libraries should be linked properly so they don't
need the executable linking calls
to be explicitly correct, but cmake gives me a headache.
- fix demo installation
- fix spec file
On 03/15/2010 08:15 AM, Matěj Cepl wrote:
Dne 14.3.2010 01:56, Hicham Haouari napsal(a):
I want to add two packages to comps in F-13 and devel:
- ueagle-atm4-firmware to hardware-support group as default
- linux-atm to dial-up group as default
And both of the are in agreement with our
On 03/12/2010 09:47 AM, Jeffrey Ollie wrote:
So is anyone going to submit a review of desktopcouch? I've been
messing with it for a personal project so I figured I'll at least get
the review done and get it into the repos. Long-term I'd appreciate
some co-maintainers...
I'll need it for
On 03/12/2010 10:19 AM, Peter Robinson wrote:
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 2:47 PM, Jeffrey Ollie j...@ocjtech.us wrote:
So is anyone going to submit a review of desktopcouch? I've been
messing with it for a personal project so I figured I'll at least get
the review done and get it into the repos.
On 03/12/2010 10:47 AM, Eric Sandeen wrote:
I really think this is not the approach, unless Fedora is just for rich people
in (theoretically) rich countries. I doubt that's what we want.
Or we could just make Fedora print money. ;)
~spot
P.S. Please don't try this.
--
devel mailing list
On 03/09/2010 05:23 PM, nodata wrote:
Does Zimbra still ship as a blob of specific versions of lots of open
source software, of which the specific versions cannot be changed?
Also, the last time I looked, it had a bundled copy of the Sun JDK (not
the open sourced one either).
~spot
--
devel
On 03/04/2010 05:21 AM, Kalev Lember wrote:
On 03/04/2010 12:07 PM, Richard Hughes wrote:
On 3 March 2010 21:45, Tom spot Callawaytcall...@redhat.com wrote:
Here are the list of changes to the Fedora Packaging Guidelines:
I've done some updates, and now rpmlint reports:
argyllcms.spec: W:
Okay. This has gone on long enough. The signal is gone from the
following threads:
* FESCo wants to ban direct stable pushes in Bodhi (urgent call forfeedback)
* Worthless updates
* Refining the update queues/process
Accordingly, I'm marking those threads as Hall-Monitored. Please stop
posting
On 03/02/2010 06:58 AM, Pierre-Yves wrote:
I believe R-nws is also wrong, but the page on the cran is not been
updated since 1.7.0.0.
Well, its an odd situation. There is a newer R-nws, but it depends on
code that Revolution Computing didn't ever properly release. Ubuntu has
copies of the deps,
On 03/03/2010 04:44 PM, Doug Ledford wrote:
Well, I *did* make a barebones proposal towards the third option in the
thread in question, and I intended to work some more on it (in a
constructive manner). But, I can put it in a new thread if you like.
Please do so, it will hopefully focus the
It has been almost a year since we announced changes to the Packaging
Guidelines, so this will be a long list. In the future, we'll try to be
more timely in writing up changes and announcing them to the Fedora
Community.
Here are the list of changes to the Fedora Packaging Guidelines:
When
It has been almost a year since we announced changes to the Packaging
Guidelines, so this will be a long list. In the future, we'll try to be
more timely in writing up changes and announcing them to the Fedora
Community.
Here are the list of changes to the Fedora Packaging Guidelines:
When
On 03/01/2010 11:48 AM, Paul Wouters wrote:
On Mon, 1 Mar 2010, Iain Arnell wrote:
Whilst cleaning up some recently adopted orphans, I discovered that
perl-Nmap-Parser has been tagged with the wrong license since August
2008. Upstream changed the license from GPLv2+ to MIT sometime back in
On 03/01/2010 11:52 AM, Peter Jones wrote:
If you think this isn't the right way
to provide a safety net for package maintainers - what is?
With the understanding that you're not specifically asking me that
question, I'd say that I'd prefer to first try to automate checks for
the most frequent
On 03/01/2010 12:48 PM, Peter Jones wrote:
I'd also like a policy in place to help us avoid situations like the
recent dnssec unpleasantness.
Sure. I'm just not at all convinced that if those packages had sit in
testing for $ARBITRARY_PERIOD_OF_TIME that they would have been tested
and fixed.
On 02/09/2010 05:40 PM, Charley Wang wrote:
Also, packages that have failed to build under these new changes can
be found here :
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/DSOLinkBugs
All of mine are fixed:
amanith:
Fixed in amanith-0.3-14.fc13
esperanza:
Fixed in esperanza-0.4.0-6.fc13
gbdfed:
Fixed
On 01/29/2010 12:59 PM, Orion Poplawski wrote:
On 01/29/2010 10:53 AM, Jesse Keating wrote:
As part of No Frozen Rawhide, we no longer make images for the rawhide
tree. Rawhide is just a repo of packages. When we branch for Alpha
we'll publish the release to be in it's own tree path with
On 01/24/2010 06:18 PM, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 20:26:10 +0100
drago01 drag...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jan 24, 2010 at 7:44 PM, Jonathan Dieter jdie...@gmail.com
wrote:
Is there some reason we don't have a iwl5150-firmware package? Or
that
On 01/28/2010 09:32 PM, Eric Smith wrote:
What is considered the best practice for packaging a program that uses
strlcpy()?
Besides patching it to not use strlcpy? :)
Is there a Fedora library that provides strlcpy() and friends?
Besides glib, no. You could probably package up libbsd for
On 01/15/2010 01:00 AM, Matt Domsch wrote:
perl-AnyEvent-XMPP-0.4-1.fc11.src.rpm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=511749
This one is awaiting an upstream fix (probably coming with 0.6).
perl-Class-InsideOut-1.09-2.fc11.src.rpm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=539136
87 matches
Mail list logo
