On Wed, 27 Jul 2011 09:19:08 -0700, JK (Jesse) wrote:
On 7/27/11 2:03 AM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
There is a big difference between a package going backwards in its EVR
and staying there and a package getting untagged because it breaks koji
buildroot and with the plan to go forward in EVR
On Wed, 27 Jul 2011 18:51:12 -0700, AW (Adam) wrote:
On Wed, 2011-07-27 at 20:39 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
Take off your pink glasses. Rawhide *is* a dumping ground. It breaks
users' installations regularly because of package maintainers using it
as exactly that, a dumping ground
On Fri, 29 Jul 2011 02:29:23 +0300, KL (Kalev) wrote:
Bumping epoch in rpm would have made it harder for all other packages to
depend on a particular rpm version. Instead of having e.g.
Requires: rpm = 4.9.1, they would now also have to remember the put the
correct epoch in there.
Worth
On Tue, 02 Aug 2011 07:49:53 -0500, JMF (Justin) wrote:
On Tue, 2011-08-02 at 13:37 +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
Below are two packages. The first one is installed, the second one is
built for Koji. Yum refuses to upgrade the installed package to the
second one, saying:
On Tue, 02 Aug 2011 11:58:08 -0700, AW (Adam) wrote:
0.2.20110718525e3df.fc16
0.2.2011072859fadcc.fc17
Split up into the elements that RPM compares, these are:
0, 2, 20110718525, e, 3, df, fc, 16
0, 2, 2011072859, fadcc, fc, 17
The third elements cause
On Thu, 11 Aug 2011 13:19:49 +0100, DH (David) wrote:
Hi,
I have a package (keyutils) that produces three RPMs: keyutils (programs),
keyutils-libs and keyutils-devel. The programs in the keyutils RPM depend on
the libraries in the keyutils-libs RPM and pick up implicit dependencies thus:
On Thu, 11 Aug 2011 13:29:52 +0100, PH (Paul) wrote:
Library requirements should be implicit unless there's a good reason
otherwise; see:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Explicit_Requires
Not true, or not the full story.
Library SONAME requirement for _external_ builds
On Thu, 11 Aug 2011 15:03:47 +0200, AS (Andreas) wrote:
Library SONAME requirement for _external_ builds ought to stay
implicit/automatic, but _libraries and subpackages_ are a different
problem space. A library update may add stuff without changing its SONAME
and while staying compatible
On Thu, 11 Aug 2011 15:24:30 +0200, AS (Andreas) wrote:
The difference is that the subpackages may need the new symbols immediately
when installing the packages, whereas future builds of external packages
would link with the latest library version that has been released before
and is the
On Thu, 11 Aug 2011 14:10:44 +0100, PH (Paul) wrote:
Library SONAME requirement for _external_ builds ought to stay
implicit/automatic, but _libraries and subpackages_ are a different
problem space. A library update may add stuff without changing its SONAME
and while staying compatible
On Thu, 11 Aug 2011 16:13:48 +0200, AS (Andreas) wrote:
No external package can build with new features of the new foo-libs
package
prior to making that package available in the buildroot.
How is the contents of the buildroot relevant to yum install bar?
bar has been built with an
On Thu, 11 Aug 2011 17:23:06 +0200, AS (Andreas) wrote:
On Thu, 11 Aug 2011 16:13:48 +0200, AS (Andreas) wrote:
No external package can build with new features of the new foo-libs
package
prior to making that package available in the buildroot.
How is the contents of the
On Fri, 12 Aug 2011 09:32:26 +0200, AS (Andreas) wrote:
So, where are we now?
yum install bar doesn't update foo-libs automagically.
Which is why you may benefit from an explicit dependency *if* you
publish such an updated bar that needs a specific minimum version
of foo-libs:
On Fri, 12 Aug 2011 12:12:15 +0200, AS (Andreas) wrote:
So, what is safer?
Neither fixes the missing symbol.
There is no missing symbol.
Be more verbose. Your very brief replies don't give enough context.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
On Fri, 12 Aug 2011 13:00:57 +0200, AS (Andreas) wrote:
There is no missing symbol.
Of course there is. See
http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.linux.redhat.fedora.devel/152427.
No, there isn't, because of a subpackage dependency with full NEVR, even
if that may not be needed as a default.
On Fri, 12 Aug 2011 14:30:46 +0200, Andreas Schwab sch...@redhat.com wrote:
The separate bar package still is entirely irrelevant
It kills your entire argument.
Andreas.
It still doesn't.
libfoo update would need to come first. First come, first served. And
what packaging techniques to
On Fri, 12 Aug 2011 02:29:14 +0300, MA (Muayyad) wrote:
hello,
what is the reason for this
Transaction Check Error:
file /lib/firmware/phanfw.bin from install of
netxen-firmware-4.0.534-4.fc15.noarch conflicts with file from package
linux-firmware-20110601-1.fc15.noarch
It's an
On Fri, 12 Aug 2011 15:54:45 +0200, Andreas Schwab sch...@redhat.com wrote:
libfoo update would need to come first.
How?
Andreas.
If you're serious about discussing this further, show that.
I'm not going to reply to this thread anymore before tomorrow.
With your single-word reply you
On Fri, 12 Aug 2011 17:30:10 +0100, MG (Matthew) wrote:
On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 09:26:33AM -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 04:40:20PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Upstream can change the ABI as much as they want without bumping the
SONAME providing that the old
On Fri, 12 Aug 2011 12:08:50 -0400, SS (Simo) wrote:
If rpmbuild does not add an implicit requires with libraryX = version
we built against then it is certainly broken.
One could also argue that an activity like yum install ... ought to
search for and apply the latest available updates of
On Sat, 13 Aug 2011 17:14:38 +0300, MA (Muayyad) wrote:
does tags: f17 in
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=257227
it's not pushed to 15, not even to 16
No, it isn't. Is it a major problem to you?
Do you need that firmware? Did you try to install it? Or was it installed
on
On Mon, 15 Aug 2011 11:31:29 +0200, MS (Mario) wrote:
Hi to all,
I'm trying to create the rpm packages for pjproject to help sflphone
request:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=692131
Pjproject is a set of libraries written in C language for building
embedded/non-embedded VoIP
On Mon, 15 Aug 2011 16:20:47 -0400, SV (seth) wrote:
On Sat, 2011-08-13 at 09:19 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Fri, 12 Aug 2011 12:08:50 -0400, SS (Simo) wrote:
If rpmbuild does not add an implicit requires with libraryX = version
we built against then it is certainly broken
Symptoms: Ogg files created from FLAC files using GStreamer contain stream
errors, which either make them refuse to play in some devices or result
in tiny interruptions during playback. Sometimes it isn't obvious that a
file is corrupted, especially not if one doesn't listen to the file from
start
On Tue, 16 Aug 2011 08:18:54 -0500, RS (Richard) wrote:
I'm working on a small library that uses a very simple makefile (no
autoconf, etc.) and it sets the library name and soname within the
makefile.
Instead of hard coding it in the spec file I would like to extract the
library name and
On Tue, 16 Aug 2011 10:16:59 -0500, RS (Richard) wrote:
Or perhaps you only need to run ldconfig -n ... to add missing symlinks?
Gave it a shot. It does create the soname symlink but does not create
a plain .so symlink for the -devel sub-package, so I still have to
create that manually.
On Tue, 16 Aug 2011 10:38:43 -0500, RS (Richard) wrote:
cd %{buildroot}%{libdir}
ldconfig -n $(pwd)
ln -s %{name}.so.? %{name}.so
cd -
Wouldn't that create a symlink of a symlink?
That isn't a problem, is it? All that matters is that the final symlink would
point at a usable library
First of all, thanks for responding.
On Wed, 17 Aug 2011 17:27:35 +0200, BO (Benjamin) wrote:
2) Fedora does not have a lot of expertise with GStreamer
If you look at the people who write the code upstream, you don't find
(m)any people that are active in Fedora.
I cannot know that, but as
On Thu, 18 Aug 2011 12:57:22 -0500, CZ (charles) wrote:
and then there's http://pacpl.sourceforge.net/
Note that if you insert your reply below a -- signature delimiter, most
mail clients will be unable to quote your reply because they truncate
everything below a signature.
Anyway, there's
On Mon, 29 Aug 2011 07:25:18 -0500, JC (Jon) wrote:
On Monday, August 29, 2011, 7:54:10 AM, Karel Zak wrote:
I'd like to remove:
ddate - converts Gregorian dates to Discordian dates
command from rawhide (F17). IMHO this crazy command is used by very
very small minority of
On Mon, 29 Aug 2011 15:42:18 +0300, KL (Kalev) wrote:
On 08/29/2011 02:54 PM, Karel Zak wrote:
I'd like to remove:
ddate - converts Gregorian dates to Discordian dates
command from rawhide (F17). IMHO this crazy command is used by very
very small minority of Fedora users.
On Mon, 29 Aug 2011 08:32:01 -0500, JC (Jon) wrote:
On Mon, 29 Aug 2011 15:42:18 +0300, KL (Kalev) wrote:
On 08/29/2011 02:54 PM, Karel Zak wrote:
I'd like to remove:
ddate - converts Gregorian dates to Discordian dates
command from rawhide (F17). IMHO this crazy
On Mon, 29 Aug 2011 08:47:40 -0500, JC (Jon) wrote:
The Julian and Gregorian calendars are also of religious origin.
Apples and oranges.
Do you find anything like in the SEE ALSO section of man ddate also
in man date?
That may be (both are human constructs, it's like say hey, that's
On Mon, 29 Aug 2011 10:27:40 -0500, JC (Jon) wrote:
I'm not suggesting ddate is mission-critical, I just want reasons for it's
removal or re-packaging to be well thought-out, not simply gosh, I don't
sue that, so. . .. Otherwise we'll start dropping games.
Sure (and not limited to games,
On Mon, 5 Sep 2011 21:38:02 +0200, TM (Till) wrote:
Hi,
is it ok to package a pearl script to convert flac files to ogg or mp3
files? The conversion is done by calling the respective command line
tools, i.e. no mp3 encoding logic is included in the script:
http://smxi.org/acxi
Kind
On Tue, 06 Sep 2011 09:34:32 -0400, DJW (Daniel) wrote:
policycoreutils has broken dependencies in the rawhide tree:
On x86_64:
policycoreutils-gui-2.1.5-2.fc17.x86_64 requires gtkhtml2
On i386:
policycoreutils-gui-2.1.5-2.fc17.i686 requires gtkhtml2
Please resolve this as soon
On Tue, 06 Sep 2011 13:00:21 -0400, DJW (Daniel) wrote:
I guess what I really need is gnome-python2-gtkhtml2, has this been
replaced?
What I could find is a request to drop it (it's a gnome-python2-extras
subpackage):
Disable Python bindings for gtkhtml2 (dead package)
On Wed, 7 Sep 2011 11:00:57 +1000, PH (Peter) wrote:
sometimes a +1 after weeks in testing is the only or at least easy way to
nudge a package into stable.
e.g: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/libXi-1.4.3-2.fc15
even with my +1 still not there, and this isn't the only package I've
On Wed, 7 Sep 2011 12:04:06 -0400, NM (Nathaniel) wrote:
That was what I thought... Sot it was the first thing I tried (note,
this is F16):
$ sudo yum install glibc-devel.i686
Loaded plugins: fastestmirror, langpacks, presto, refresh-packagekit,
remove-with-leaves, rpm-warm-cache, show-
On Thu, 15 Sep 2011 16:39:23 -0500, RS (Richard) wrote:
Here's the updated SRPM:
http://hobbes1069.fedorapeople.org/jokosher/jokosher-0.11.5-1.fc15.src.rpm
So the question remains, instead of seeing if someone else will submit
it, why not submit it yourself?
Notice that jokosher used to be
On Fri, 16 Sep 2011 13:49:36 -0400, SV (seth) wrote:
There are still a largish number of packages out there that have things
like:
Requires: foo
where they really want:
Requires: foo(64bit)
Fixing this in some packages is not entirely easy.
Why? Because whereas the %{name}%{?_isa}
On Sat, 1 Oct 2011 09:58:12 +0200, LW (Linus) wrote:
Following the intrusion on kernel.org I reverified my system
with chkrootkit and it moans like this:
Searching for Suckit rootkit... Warning: /sbin/init INFECTED
SuckIT rootkit? Don't think so, because after
yum reinstall systemd,
On Tue, 4 Oct 2011 16:08:58 +0200, IA (Iain) wrote:
a workaround with Provides does it's jon and all autotests are running
fine - (transferdomain, createdomain, updatedomain, createperson.)
Provides: perl(SOAP::WSDL::Header)
Please don't provide things that you're not really
On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 17:19:22 +0530, KC (Kashyap) wrote:
Heya,
I'm trying to get rawhide running by yum updating a minimal footprint F16
virtual
machine. Only @core package, so no gnome-* nothing else.
And no /bin/sh either? It is provided by bash.
ERROR with transaction check vs
On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 18:21:03 +0530, KC (Kashyap) wrote:
On 10/11/2011 05:29 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 17:19:22 +0530, KC (Kashyap) wrote:
Heya,
I'm trying to get rawhide running by yum updating a minimal footprint F16
virtual
machine. Only @core package, so
On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 19:22:34 +0300, TL (Tomi) wrote:
Kashyap Chamarthy writes:
Running Transaction Check
ERROR with transaction check vs depsolve:
/bin/sh is needed by groff-base-1.21-5.fc17.x86_64
I have this same problem when trying to upgrade from fedora 15 to rawhide. I
noticed
On Wed, 19 Oct 2011 23:36:43 +0200, HA (Heiko) wrote:
IMHO Rawhide should be the only place where version-control-snapshots
of such an important component like glibc should be allowed.
Maybe it would be better to let the value of positive karma depend on
the severity of the package. That
On Wed, 2 Nov 2011 08:01:16 +, PR (Peter) wrote:
Any ideas on what's happened?
[paul@PB3 ~]$ rpm -qa evolution*
evolution-data-server-3.2.0-1.fc17.x86_64
evolution-spamassassin-3.2.0-1.fc17.x86_64
evolution-data-server-devel-3.2.0-1.fc17.x86_64
On Sat, 05 Nov 2011 20:12:28 +0200, VS (Ville) wrote:
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
On Sat, 05 Nov 2011 09:49:16 +0100, RH (Reindl) wrote:
guys this is not the way you can act with users treat them report
exactly where and how you like it, a few peopole will do, most
will never again report any bug and stop testing packages and
later if there are too few testers maintainers
On Sat, 05 Nov 2011 19:07:44 -0400, TL (Tom) wrote:
On Sun, 06 Nov 2011 00:03:28 +0200, VS (Ville) wrote:
How are you checking whether your executable ended up linked with
something?
Admittedly, I trusted Tom Lane's list of affected packages, looked at
ldd -u -r output and then
On Sat, 05 Nov 2011 19:35:21 -0400, TL (Tom) wrote:
On Sat, 05 Nov 2011 19:07:44 -0400, TL (Tom) wrote:
My list was just the result of repoquery --whatrequires.
The last Rawhide build of geeqie also doesn't depend on libpng*.
F-15 does, however, which might be where you've run
On Sun, 06 Nov 2011 17:56:40 +0200, VS (Ville) 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
On Mon, 07 Nov 2011 17:35:53 +0200, VS (Ville) wrote:
* The %configure macro (at least since F-16) does
LDFLAGS=${LDFLAGS:--Wl,-z,relro }; export LDFLAGS;
so one cannot simply export a customized $LDFLAGS in the spec file
without disturbing the macro.
That's what I meant
On Tue, 8 Nov 2011 08:53:58 +0100, MP (Michał) wrote:
2011/11/8 Kevin Kofler:
Michał Piotrowski wrote:
Out of curiosity I wanted to ask, why do I need colord on my system?
Try yum remove colord and see what it wants to remove (and probably say
no if it's anything important to you),
Why is gnome-scan-0.6.2-7.fc15 offered in Fedora 16 when it has been
retired months ago and is affected by serious crashers? The reports in
bugzilla are without a reply from the assignee:
http://bugz.fedoraproject.org/gnome-scan
Has it been retired without requesting rel-eng to block it from
On Fri, 11 Nov 2011 02:24:27 +0100, C (Casper) wrote:
Hello,
I have three approved packages :
[1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=749320
[2] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=741129
[3] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=726080
I followed the link :
On Thu, 10 Nov 2011 18:22:55 -0800, AW (Adam) wrote:
Anyone else noticed this? Anything which needs interactive auth via PK
doesn't seem to work: when I run virt-manager it doesn't ask me for the
root password and then successfully list out the local VMs, it just
immediately displays an error
On Fri, 11 Nov 2011 10:17:20 + (UTC), AR (Andre) wrote:
Adam Tkac atkac at redhat.com writes:
today I tried to upload new bind tarball via `fedpkg new-sources`
command but it failed with
pycurl.error: (60, 'Peer certificate cannot be authenticated with given
CA certificates')
On Sat, 12 Nov 2011 09:04:33 -0500, SV (Sam) wrote:
For the longest time, I was able to upgrade an existing system by copying
over the pxeboot vmlinuz and initrd.img, sticking them into menu.lst, and
directing grub to load them.
Up until F14 this worked fine. F15's pxeboot/vmlinuz made
On Sat, 12 Nov 2011 13:45:30 -0500, SV (Sam) wrote:
F16 grub2
barfed and refused to install, when I got around to installing it via PXE.
The machine survived a reboot, thanks to the F15 version of grub that was
left intact. Removed grub2, installed F16 grub, applied all updates. The
On Wed, 16 Nov 2011 14:25:57 +0530, SP (Siddhesh) wrote:
I have rebased LibRaw in rawhide to 0.14.3. There is now a shared
library with this version, so it is recommended that packages that
were linking against LibRaw statically, now do so dynamically.
Only shotwell.
$ repoquery
2011-06-23 : FTBFS not responded to
2010-06-30 : -static packaging bug not responded to
Plus, release 0.89 from 20-May-2011 is available whereas Fedora contains
0.84 from 2010 ( http://sourceforge.net/projects/courier/files/cone/ ).
This looks like somebody with interest in Cone should sign up
Main package syslinux does:
Obsoletes: syslinux-devel %{version}-%{release}
Provides: syslinux-devel
However, a syslinux-devel subpackage definition is present. A -devel
package is built. No comment explains above Obs/Prov pair.
%changelog only says:
* Thu Dec 17 2009 Peter Jones … -
On Wed, 09 Nov 2011 10:42:10 -0500, TL (Tom) wrote:
On Fri, 2011-11-04 at 13:12 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
I plan to provide the 1.2.x libpng shared library (and only the library,
not its devel support files) in a libpng-compat subpackage for the time
being.
Any reason why the compat
On Sun, 20 Nov 2011 16:33:38 +0100, AR (Adrian) wrote:
I just tried to rebuild kover and it failed during build with a strange
error:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/getfile?taskID=3527418name=build.logoffset=-4000
The reason for this error is, however, a broken dependency.
On Mon, 21 Nov 2011 20:56:02 +, JBG (Jóhann) wrote:
Instead of everybody that are doing needed work in the distribution
having to run around after maintainers trying to find out if they are
still active or not and initiate the unresponsive maintainer policy,
cant we revert the process
On Mon, 21 Nov 2011 16:26:02 -0500, TL (Tom) wrote:
With
pkgconfig(libpng) = 1.2.46
pkgconfig(libpng12) = 1.2.46
once libpng12.pc gets removed from the distribution, the dep-chains
break, of course.
As a temporary work-around, you could have provided that thing manually
in
On Mon, 21 Nov 2011 22:58:50 +0100, RH (Reindl) wrote:
+1
nothing is more frustrating for users as ignored bugreports reintroduced from
release to relase while th eonly response is from bugzapper about EOL of the
release
Well, that's not the same problem as this thread is about.
There a
On Tue, 22 Nov 2011 00:09:36 +0100, RH (Reindl) wrote:
Am 21.11.2011 23:50, schrieb Michael Schwendt:
On Mon, 21 Nov 2011 22:58:50 +0100, RH (Reindl) wrote:
+1
nothing is more frustrating for users as ignored bugreports reintroduced
from
release to relase while th eonly
On Tue, 22 Nov 2011 00:00:33 +0100, MT (Miloslav) wrote:
Nothing is in place to detect inactive maintainers automatically.
We don't really need absolute automation - if a package is not
actively maintained but nobody notices, does it really matter?[1]
Yes. Users notice, but they report
On Tue, 22 Nov 2011 17:32:56 +0100, VO (Vít) wrote:
I remember
at leas one example from history when I was not able to reach the
maintainer and at the end he was quite angry that I was so daring to
call him unresponsive, even though I wanted just to help him. Also,
there are other
On Tue, 22 Nov 2011 11:05:37 -0600, RS (Richard) wrote:
2011/11/22 Bruno Wolff III:
One area where we could probably do more advertising for is getting new
packagers via the co-maintainer route. I think most of the new packagers
still come in by packaging a new package. I think we really
On Tue, 22 Nov 2011 17:51:31 +, JBG (Jóhann) wrote:
What do people see as pros and cons continuing to use the current
package ownership model?
Understand a package's owners as some sort of micro-SIG. The people who
sign up as a package's team of owners are the ones who want to be
On Tue, 22 Nov 2011 17:59:58 +, TH (Tom) wrote:
Uh, come on, ... package submitters waiting on the NEEDSPONSOR list
could _really_ work a little bit more actively on persuading potential
sponsors of their packaging skills. Instead, some wait silently for
months without doing any
On Tue, 22 Nov 2011 13:26:27 -0600, RS (Richard) wrote:
Also along these lines...
Perhaps this has been discussed before I'm not aware of it but do we
really need to hold up a package because the submitter needs a
sponsor?
What I mean by that is, if I'm not misunderstanding the process,
On Tue, 22 Nov 2011 12:25:35 -0600, RS (Richard) wrote:
[...]
question: How does a sponsor find future sponsors? Just because I
complete an informal or formal review doesn't mean that a sponsor sees
it, unless there's some system that provides visibility that I'm
unaware of.
Well, one way
On Tue, 22 Nov 2011 14:30:47 -0600, RS (Richard) wrote:
How does someone who needs to be sponsored make sure that their
informal reviews get noticed? Not everyone will 'toot their own horn'
so to speak. That doesn't mean they are not a good prospect as a
packager.
Similar answer as before.
On Tue, 22 Nov 2011 15:47:32 -0600, RS (Richard) wrote:
but that's a separate problem. The shear amount of
documentation/guidelines there are.
Hey, :) you know what? Troublesome newbies would like even more
documentation, guidelines and policy documents. Also a book about koji,
bodhi, package
On Wed, 23 Nov 2011 14:52:11 -0600, ME (Manuel) wrote:
(Cross Posting both to the Developers and Users List, sent a copy to
Rex Dieter, who I believe is the maintainer for Kmess in the Fedora
Community)
http://bugz.fedoraproject.org/kmess
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
On Wed, 23 Nov 2011 08:18:11 -0600, RS (Richard) wrote:
I didn't imply that there should be less documentation or guidelines,
only that it's more than a person can grok at one time.
That's too vague for me to understand it.
Some topics are covered by entire books, for example even several
On Thu, 24 Nov 2011 11:49:00 +0100, I wrote:
[...]
some level of perseverance, some sort of prove that they are willing to
[...]
s/prove/proof/
--
Not an attempt at fixing all embarrassing typos, however. ;)
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
On Tue, 29 Nov 2011 11:28:49 +0100, MP (Michał) wrote:
Hi,
I've got 15 daemons writen in python that run php tasks. When I start
all daemons I see a lot of segfaults in logs.
[139860.124330] php[30470]: segfault at 14 ip 7f515ba0c7d8 sp
7fff64d4a2d0 error 4 in
On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 21:13:21 +0800, Chen wrote:
It seems a considerable amount of packages in fedora don't update for
years.
If you find any, open a ticket and mention the new release.
I think we should add some policy to address those unmaintained
packages,
There is the non-responsive
On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 09:11:57 +0200, Stefan wrote:
On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 16:04:20 -0500 (CDT) Mike McGrath wrote:
MM
MM http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedorapeople_Repos
http://repos.fedorapeople.org/repos/
There is one repo called bioinfornatics, I am pretty sure it should be
On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 11:13:49 +0900, Mamoru wrote:
Hello, all:
This morning I receided massive broken deps on F-14 and then received
massive mails of tagging into dist-f14 tree. Can I assume that
I can ignore these broken deps report or there is something I have
to do for this?
Why did we
On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 18:30:49 +0900, Mamoru wrote:
Michael Schwendt wrote, at 07/31/2010 05:44 PM +9:00:
On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 11:13:49 +0900, Mamoru wrote:
Hello, all:
This morning I receided massive broken deps on F-14 and then received
massive mails of tagging into dist-f14 tree. Can
On Mon, 02 Aug 2010 12:31:22 +0100, James wrote:
Remember that some packages get very little activity because they need
very little.
And these are not a problem at all.
Increasing someone's AWOLness counter because they didn't for example,
update ed is just plain silly.
[snipped the rest
On Mon, 02 Aug 2010 14:17:43 -0600, Nathanael wrote:
On 08/02/2010 09:32 AM, Branched Report wrote:
Compose started at Mon Aug 2 13:15:11 UTC 2010
Broken deps for x86_64
--
barry-0.17-0.1.20100329git.fc14.x86_64 requires
On Mon, 02 Aug 2010 16:01:02 -0400, Carl wrote:
Perhaps we could organize a bug zapping day for the pulseaudio bugs?
Sure, i'm willing to _try_ to help if we
can get Lennart to participate and/or pulseaudio experts to assist
us.
Pulseaudio is currently marked as Only for PA experts here
On Tue, 03 Aug 2010 11:27:00 +0100, James wrote:
On 08/02/2010 01:41 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Mon, 02 Aug 2010 12:31:22 +0100, James wrote:
Remember that some packages get very little activity because they need
very little.
And these are not a problem at all.
Increasing
On Wed, 4 Aug 2010 12:32:23 -0400, Bill wrote:
Unblocked orphan librsvg2
What's going on here?
More than a dozen Red Hat people with commit access, but access
was denied to one other Red Hat employee. Why?
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/acls/name/librsvg2
| xiphmont's Info | xiphmont's
On Thu, 5 Aug 2010 10:46:42 + (UTC), Petr wrote:
I agree NAS is very old audio system, but it has history. It works (or
should work) across operating systems (do not think only about Linux).
In addition it supports bidirectional sound transmission (from
microphone).
PulseAudio is
On Fri, 06 Aug 2010 14:11:20 -0400, Matthias wrote:
On Wed, 2010-08-04 at 12:32 -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote:
Unblocked orphan librsvg2
I've taken ownership of this now, since dropping it is not an option. If
anybody else wants to maintain the package, please let me know, I'm
happy to
On Sat, 07 Aug 2010 11:51:07 +0100, Frank wrote:
Thougth I ask for some feedback.
Currently when abrt finds an existing bug,
it goes
similar bug found, (shows a link) adding you to cc
looking at some of the bugs, that I have reported or cc'd on.
Where someone earlier in the thread had
On Sat, 07 Aug 2010 20:24:42 +0100, David wrote:
How long should it take for these to get pushed?
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/openconnect-2.25-1.fc12
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/openconnect-2.25-1.fc13
Bodhi bug? Where's the bodhi comment saying that you've submitted
On Sat, 07 Aug 2010 20:42:18 +0100, David wrote:
On Sat, 2010-08-07 at 21:35 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Sat, 07 Aug 2010 20:24:42 +0100, David wrote:
How long should it take for these to get pushed?
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/openconnect-2.25-1.fc12
https
On Tue, 10 Aug 2010 14:20:04 -0600, Kevin wrote:
* LINK: http://fedoraproject.org/PackageReviewStatus/MERGE.html
(nirik, 19:59:05)
* AGREED: : encourage provenpackagers to commit to rawhide fixes for
merge reviews. said pp's should not be the reviewer.
Pardon? What exactly is the
On Tue, 10 Aug 2010 18:03:07 -0400, Bill wrote:
Michael Schwendt said:
* LINK: http://fedoraproject.org/PackageReviewStatus/MERGE.html
(nirik, 19:59:05)
* AGREED: : encourage provenpackagers to commit to rawhide fixes for
merge reviews. said pp's should
On Thu, 12 Aug 2010 17:57:28 -0400, Luke wrote:
A new version of bodhi has just hit production. This release contains
a number of bugfixes and improvements, along with some important process
changes.
- Minimum time-in-testing requirements
- Every day bodhi will look for
1 - 100 of 1396 matches
Mail list logo
