On 06/06/2012 04:25 PM, Michal Schmidt wrote:
We will split out a systemd-libs subpackage to be more multilib-friendly.
Done in systemd-185-4.gita2368a3.fc18.
Michal
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 11:30 AM, Adam Jackson a...@redhat.com wrote:
I think we can also take this to mean that an explicit:
Requires: udev
is now redundant? In which case the following (F17) packages can be cleaned
up:
% repoquery --disablerepo=* --enablerepo=fedora --qf=%{sourcerpm}
On 06/05/2012 04:33 PM, Michal Schmidt wrote:
On 06/05/2012 03:52 AM, Kay Sievers wrote:
Systemd includes libudev.so.1, while the old libudev.rpm provided
libudev.so.0. Therefore, all packages using udev need to be rebuilt.
Here's a list of owners with packages that currently require
On Wed, 2012-06-06 at 01:12 +0200, Sandro Mani wrote:
#yum update mesa-libgbm
[...]
--- Package mesa-libgbm.i686 0:8.1-0.5.fc18 will be updated
--- Package mesa-libgbm.x86_64 0:8.1-0.5.fc18 will be updated
--- Package mesa-libgbm.i686 0:8.1-0.6.fc18 will be an update
-- Processing
On 06/06/2012 03:26 PM, Adam Jackson wrote:
But if there's not going to be a systemd-libs subpackage, any issues you
do have with this scenario are systemd bugs.
We discussed it recently with Kay. We will split out a systemd-libs
subpackage to be more multilib-friendly. That said, we are not
We discussed it recently with Kay. We will split out a systemd-libs
subpackage to be more multilib-friendly. That said, we are not aware of any
specific issues with having both systemd.{x86_64,i686} installed.
Just to elaborate: The issues I was referring to happened during a
F16-rawhide
On 06/05/2012 09:30 AM, Adam Jackson wrote:
On 6/4/12 9:52 PM, Kay Sievers wrote:
We merged the upstream udev repository entirely into the systemd
repository. There is no standalone upstream udev project anymore.
The version of systemd which includes udev has landed in rawhide a
couple of days
On 2012-06-06 6:26, Adam Jackson wrote:
On Wed, 2012-06-06 at 01:12 +0200, Sandro Mani wrote:
After having had some funny issues in the past due to there being two
systemds (x86_64, i686) installed for some reason, something tells me
that it's a bad idea to proceed with the update. Or am I
On 06/06/2012 05:39 PM, Nathanael D. Noblet wrote:
Come to think of it... shouldn't the rules that come with a package be
in /lib/udev/rules.d?
Yes, but add the /usr prefix: %{_prefix}/lib/udev/rules.d/
Michal
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
On 06/06/2012 05:52 PM, Garrett Holmstrom wrote:
Does rpm handle binaries' colors everywhere, or just in selected
locations? I'm especially curious about /usr/lib.
I don't know the answer in the general case, but it definitely works for
binaries in /usr/lib/systemd/. No conflicts are reported
On 06/06/2012 07:25 AM, Michal Schmidt wrote:
We will split out a systemd-libs subpackage to be more multilib-friendly.
That said, we are not aware of any specific issues with having both
systemd.{x86_64,i686} installed.
As long as systemd.rpm has content that is platform-dependent, then
On Tue, Jun 05, 2012 at 11:30:57AM -0400, Adam Jackson wrote:
On 6/4/12 9:52 PM, Kay Sievers wrote:
We merged the upstream udev repository entirely into the systemd
repository. There is no standalone upstream udev project anymore.
The version of systemd which includes udev has landed in
On 06/05/2012 03:52 AM, Kay Sievers wrote:
Systemd includes libudev.so.1, while the old libudev.rpm provided
libudev.so.0. Therefore, all packages using udev need to be rebuilt.
Here's a list of owners with packages that currently require
libudev.so.0 in Rawhide.
# repoquery --whatrequires
On 6/4/12 9:52 PM, Kay Sievers wrote:
We merged the upstream udev repository entirely into the systemd
repository. There is no standalone upstream udev project anymore.
The version of systemd which includes udev has landed in rawhide a
couple of days ago. Fedora 18 will not have a udev.rpm, no
On 6/5/12 10:33 AM, Michal Schmidt wrote:
Here's a list of owners with packages that currently require
libudev.so.0 in Rawhide.
# repoquery --whatrequires libudev.so.0 --qf '%{sourcerpm}' | rev | cut
-f3- -d- | rev | sort | uniq | fedoradev-pkgowners | sort | column -t
ajax libdrm
bskeggs
On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 10:30 AM, Adam Jackson a...@redhat.com wrote:
On 6/4/12 9:52 PM, Kay Sievers wrote:
We merged the upstream udev repository entirely into the systemd
repository. There is no standalone upstream udev project anymore.
The version of systemd which includes udev has landed
On 06/05/2012 03:52 AM, Kay Sievers wrote:
Systemd includes libudev.so.1, while the old libudev.rpm provided
libudev.so.0. Therefore, all packages using udev need to be rebuilt.
Here is what's happening on my x86_64 rawhide install which has some
i686 packages (in particular, mesa) installed
We merged the upstream udev repository entirely into the systemd
repository. There is no standalone upstream udev project anymore.
The version of systemd which includes udev has landed in rawhide a
couple of days ago. Fedora 18 will not have a udev.rpm, no libudev.rpm
and no libudev-devel.rpm.
18 matches
Mail list logo
