Re: Adding ~/.local/bin to default PATH

2011-07-27 Thread Ralf Corsepius
On 07/27/2011 12:20 PM, Andrew Haley wrote: On 27/07/11 10:47, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 12:02:14PM -0700, Josh Stone wrote: On 07/26/2011 09:49 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 08:45:11AM -0430, Robert Marcano wrote: In /etc/skel/.bash_profile

Re: Adding ~/.local/bin to default PATH

2011-07-28 Thread Ralf Corsepius
On 07/28/2011 03:07 PM, Chris Adams wrote: The source of /usr/local was NFS-mounted /usr, with /usr/local being on the local system. This only partially applies - The source of /usr/local was to override system programs and system libraries in /usr with locally installed files (below

Fedora 16 mirrorlist-URLs point to rawhide

2011-07-31 Thread Ralf Corsepius
Hi, Seems as if the f16 split wasn't reflected to the mirrorlists: http://mirrors.fedoraproject.org/mirrorlist?repo=fedora-16arch=x86_64 returns references to development/rawhide instead of development/16 Ralf -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: [PATCH] macros: Globally add --disable-silent-rules to configure

2011-08-09 Thread Ralf Corsepius
On 08/09/2011 07:19 PM, Jan Kratochvil wrote: On Tue, 09 Aug 2011 19:14:27 +0200, Adam Jackson wrote: If you're volunteering to fix and/or paper over all the spurious warnings gcc and glibc introduce with every phase of the moon, then sure. Yes, I do it for my component, GDB has -Werror

Re: [PATCH] macros: Globally add --disable-silent-rules to configure

2011-08-13 Thread Ralf Corsepius
On 08/13/2011 10:51 AM, Jim Meyering wrote: Whether to invest in enabling -Werror for all packages in a mass rebuild however is another question. Pardon, but this is not a question, this is beyond reason and foolish. There will be many build failures, and some will be unwarranted. Exactly

Re: License

2011-08-25 Thread Ralf Corsepius
On 08/26/2011 12:17 AM, Nathan O. wrote: I am looking at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text . It sounds to me that upstream must provide the COPYING file. No, this is a misinterpretation and overinterpretation Upstreams need to license their works

Re: [HEADS UP] remove ddate(1) command from rawhide

2011-08-29 Thread Ralf Corsepius
On 08/29/2011 05:00 PM, Karel Zak wrote: On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 08:47:40AM -0500, Jon Ciesla wrote: That may be (both are human constructs, it's like say hey, that's made up word!, but no, I don't. My point is simply that while it is extremely silly code, it is in fact code provided by

Re: what if native systemd service is slower than old sysvinit script?

2011-09-14 Thread Ralf Corsepius
On 09/14/2011 04:31 PM, drago01 wrote: On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 4:22 PM, Richard W.M. Jonesrjo...@redhat.com wrote: On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 01:03:04AM +0200, Michał Piotrowski wrote: Hi 2011/9/13 Tom Lanet...@redhat.com: (This isn't new with 9.1, btw --- the last version or so of 9.0 for

Re: what if native systemd service is slower than old sysvinit script?

2011-09-14 Thread Ralf Corsepius
On 09/14/2011 06:23 PM, drago01 wrote: On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 5:34 PM, Ralf Corsepiusrc040...@freenet.de wrote: My netbook boots up F14 in ca. 60 secs, while F15 boots up in 62 secs. I'd call this below measurement accuracy. What kind of disk is that? It's ca. 3 years old WD Scorpio Blue

Re: what if native systemd service is slower than old sysvinit script?

2011-09-15 Thread Ralf Corsepius
On 09/15/2011 11:03 AM, drago01 wrote: On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 10:16 AM, Jan F. Chadimajchad...@redhat.com wrote: [...] . When watching the load of the virtual machine that starts with systemd it is clear to me that the total CPU consumption is significantly greater than in the case of

Re: what if native systemd service is slower than old sysvinit script?

2011-09-15 Thread Ralf Corsepius
On 09/15/2011 09:42 AM, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote: On 09/15/2011 05:25 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote: In general, there are other factors coming into play, such as parallel startup using more memory, parallelization not providing many advantages on systems with a small number of CPU cores

Re: what if native systemd service is slower than old sysvinit script?

2011-09-15 Thread Ralf Corsepius
On 09/15/2011 06:11 PM, Michal Schmidt wrote: On 09/15/2011 05:54 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote: On 09/15/2011 09:42 AM, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote: On 09/15/2011 05:25 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote: Anyway, some more figures: On the same machine, bootup times when booting from a (slow) external (IDE

Re: Responsibility for rebuilding dependent components, was: F-16 Branched report: 20110920 changes

2011-09-20 Thread Ralf Corsepius
On 09/20/2011 03:01 PM, Nils Philippsen wrote: On Tue, 2011-09-20 at 13:53 +0200, Johannes Lips wrote: What's wrong with all that broken deps? Is this just a missing rebuild against opencv and other libs or what's the reason for all this mess. I mean the release of F16 is not that far away and

Re: Responsibility for rebuilding dependent components, was: F-16 Branched report: 20110920 changes

2011-09-20 Thread Ralf Corsepius
On 09/20/2011 03:47 PM, Bruno Wolff III wrote: On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 15:01:06 +0200, Nils Philippsenn...@redhat.com wrote: I'd like to see a discussion about how we can ensure -- within reasonable limits -- that e.g. bumping a library's SONAME is followed by dependent components being

Re: Responsibility for rebuilding dependent components, was: F-16 Branched report: 20110920 changes

2011-09-20 Thread Ralf Corsepius
On 09/20/2011 04:16 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote: On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 04:13:27PM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: On 09/20/2011 04:03 PM, Adam Jackson wrote: I'd like to see a rationale for jamming a soname-changing update into the OS so close to a release. Maintainers on vacation, non-trivial

Re: Responsibility for rebuilding dependent components, was: F-16 Branched report: 20110920 changes

2011-09-20 Thread Ralf Corsepius
On 09/20/2011 04:37 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote: On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 04:35:16PM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: That said, a reasonable QA would cherry-pick such solution candidates from *-testing and integrate them. Simply flooding maintainers with complaint mails about broken deps

Re: Responsibility for rebuilding dependent components, was: F-16 Branched report: 20110920 changes

2011-09-20 Thread Ralf Corsepius
On 09/20/2011 05:52 PM, Nils Philippsen wrote: On Tue, 2011-09-20 at 15:19 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: When you have a closer look, you'll notice that such mass rebuilts were being delayed by QA's delay queue and now are stuck. I didn't want to (re)start that particular discussion

Re: Responsibility for rebuilding dependent components, was: F-16 Branched report: 20110920 changes

2011-09-20 Thread Ralf Corsepius
On 09/20/2011 05:30 PM, Doug Ledford wrote: - Original Message - I'd like to see a rationale for jamming a soname-changing update into the OS so close to a release. In the absence of a very good motivation, that's not good engineering practice, and it's not consistent with the

Re: Responsibility for rebuilding dependent components, was: F-16 Branched report: 20110920 changes

2011-09-20 Thread Ralf Corsepius
On 09/20/2011 04:33 PM, Adam Jackson wrote: Of course, you had the option of not pulling the new OpenSceneGraph back to F16, or simply not doing so yet. Correct. I could have opted to ship the distro which embraces novelty with outdated, upstream unmaintained and upstream dead packages, no

Re: Responsibility for rebuilding dependent components, was: F-16 Branched report: 20110920 changes

2011-09-21 Thread Ralf Corsepius
On 09/21/2011 01:25 PM, Nils Philippsen wrote: On Tue, 2011-09-20 at 22:25 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: On 09/20/2011 05:52 PM, Nils Philippsen wrote: On Tue, 2011-09-20 at 15:19 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: When you have a closer look, you'll notice that such mass rebuilts were being

Re: Responsibility for rebuilding dependent components, was: F-16 Branched report: 20110920 changes

2011-09-21 Thread Ralf Corsepius
On 09/21/2011 04:43 PM, Nils Philippsen wrote: On Wed, 2011-09-21 at 15:51 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: On 09/21/2011 01:25 PM, Nils Philippsen wrote: On Tue, 2011-09-20 at 22:25 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: On 09/20/2011 05:52 PM, Nils Philippsen wrote: On Tue, 2011-09-20 at 15:19 +0200

Re: F-16 Branched report: 20110920 changes

2011-09-22 Thread Ralf Corsepius
On 09/20/2011 01:12 PM, Branched Report wrote: Compose started at Tue Sep 20 08:15:41 UTC 2011 Broken deps for x86_64 -- This breakage is weird: hosts3d-1.13-2.fc15.x86_64 requires libglfw.so.2.6()(64bit) In Fedora 16, libglfw

Re: F-16 Branched report: 20110920 changes

2011-09-22 Thread Ralf Corsepius
On 09/22/2011 11:31 AM, Kalev Lember wrote: On 09/22/2011 12:05 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote: On 09/20/2011 01:12 PM, Branched Report wrote: Compose started at Tue Sep 20 08:15:41 UTC 2011 Broken deps for x86_64 -- This breakage is weird

Re: F-16 Branched report: 20110920 changes

2011-09-22 Thread Ralf Corsepius
On 09/22/2011 01:11 PM, Kalev Lember wrote: On 09/22/2011 12:52 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote: On 09/22/2011 11:31 AM, Kalev Lember wrote: Depends on how you want to resolve this. If you are going for resurrecting the packages, then fix them up to build again and submit new package review requests

Re: Responsibility for rebuilding dependent components, was: F-16 Branched report: 20110920 changes

2011-09-22 Thread Ralf Corsepius
On 09/22/2011 05:58 PM, Till Maas wrote: On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 09:15:38AM +0200, Marcela Mašláňová wrote: I hope you don't suggest for every rebuild of few dependent packages one FESCo ticket. This is what is currently required to ask FES for help. It is certainly a lot better and more

Re: GNOME 3 - font point sizes now scaled?

2011-10-03 Thread Ralf Corsepius
On 10/03/2011 06:01 PM, Michael Ekstrand wrote: On 10/03/2011 10:48 AM, Camilo Mesias wrote: Hi, A daft question perhaps, but I thought... I'm not sure how we can make DPI magically be correct in gazillions of broken displays' EDID. How do other OS' do it? I don't know that they do. In

Re: release number when upstream *only* has git hashes?

2011-10-04 Thread Ralf Corsepius
On 10/04/2011 08:04 AM, Eric Smith wrote: I wrote: What should I use for the release number in a spec when upstream does not have releases, and *only* has git hashes? It's not a prerelease since it is not clear that there will ever be any official release. I meant version number, not

Re: release number when upstream *only* has git hashes?

2011-10-04 Thread Ralf Corsepius
On 10/04/2011 09:01 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: On Tue, Oct 04, 2011 at 05:58:33PM +0200, Matej Cepl wrote: On 4.10.2011 16:38, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: The date should not go there as you cannot tell if upstream will someday switch to an actual version string (which will then need an Epoch to

Re: release number when upstream *only* has git hashes?

2011-10-05 Thread Ralf Corsepius
On 10/05/2011 04:35 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: On Wed, Oct 05, 2011 at 06:53:50AM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: On 10/04/2011 09:01 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: Now do we want to put the git hash into the version field too? Yes, because git checkouts by date are not sufficiently reliable

Re: Subject: IMPORTANT: Mandatory password and ssh key change by 2011-11-30

2011-10-13 Thread Ralf Corsepius
On 10/12/2011 09:59 PM, Mike McGrath wrote: On Wed, 12 Oct 2011, Henrik Nordström wrote: ons 2011-10-12 klockan 13:04 -0500 skrev Mike McGrath: Lots of people use and share keys across different projects. There is no security issue in sharing kes across different projects, other than that

Re: Subject: IMPORTANT: Mandatory password and ssh key change by 2011-11-30

2011-10-13 Thread Ralf Corsepius
On 10/13/2011 11:13 AM, Tomas Mraz wrote: On Thu, 2011-10-13 at 10:59 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: On 10/12/2011 09:59 PM, Mike McGrath wrote: On Wed, 12 Oct 2011, Henrik Nordström wrote: ons 2011-10-12 klockan 13:04 -0500 skrev Mike McGrath: Lots of people use and share keys across

Re: UsrMove feature (was Re: FESCo meeting minutes for 2011-10-24)

2011-10-25 Thread Ralf Corsepius
On 10/25/2011 09:02 AM, Harald Hoyer wrote: On 10/24/2011 08:05 PM, Chris Adams wrote: === #fedora-meeting: FESCO (2011-10-24) === * Discussion about https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/UsrMove (t8m, 17:26:45)

Re: UsrMove feature (was Re: FESCo meeting minutes for 2011-10-24)

2011-10-25 Thread Ralf Corsepius
On 10/25/2011 08:33 PM, Michał Piotrowski wrote: 2011/10/25 Chris Adamscmad...@hiwaay.net: Once upon a time, Michał Piotrowskimkkp...@gmail.com said: I created feature page https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/F18MorePortableInterpreters I strongly object to this feature. /bin/sh is a

Re: UsrMove feature

2011-10-26 Thread Ralf Corsepius
On 10/26/2011 03:18 PM, Harald Hoyer wrote: On 10/26/2011 03:07 PM, Chris Adams wrote: Once upon a time, Richard W.M. Jonesrjo...@redhat.com said: Having said that, the split between /sbin and /bin is not a truly historical one, ie. it didn't exist in V7. I think it was added by System V

Re: UsrMove feature (was Re: FESCo meeting minutes for 2011-10-24)

2011-10-26 Thread Ralf Corsepius
On 10/26/2011 03:40 PM, Harald Hoyer wrote: On 10/24/2011 08:05 PM, Chris Adams wrote: === #fedora-meeting: FESCO (2011-10-24) === * Discussion about https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/UsrMove (t8m, 17:26:45)

Re: UsrMove feature

2011-10-27 Thread Ralf Corsepius
On 10/27/2011 07:52 AM, David Tardon wrote: On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 03:23:55PM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: Besides this, one may have the opinion, that no binaries should be allowed in /usr/lib/. Fedora never enforced this rule, because RH has a tradition of being sloppy wrt. /usr/lib

Re: Fesco membership policies

2011-11-14 Thread Ralf Corsepius
On 11/14/2011 05:50 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote: On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 12:31:21PM -0500, Clyde E. Kunkel wrote: Also, how about a non-technical member from the general user community? Very strong no from me. FESCO is a technical committee, supposed to provide strategic technical decisions and

Re: Package segfaults when built with -O2 but not with -O0

2011-11-18 Thread Ralf Corsepius
On 11/18/2011 05:32 PM, Paul Howarth wrote: On Fri, 18 Nov 2011 15:28:27 + Andrew Haleya...@redhat.com wrote: On 11/18/2011 11:31 AM, Paul Howarth wrote: One of my packages, pptp, suffers occasional segfaults as reported in http://bugzilla.redhat.com/749455. However, whilst

Re: Package segfaults when built with -O2 but not with -O0

2011-11-18 Thread Ralf Corsepius
On 11/19/2011 04:57 AM, Xose Vazquez Perez wrote: Kevin Kofler wrote: Indeed, -Wall is not really all. :-) -Wall -Wextra is closer to all, but there are still some things those won't warn about, e.g. -Wwrite-strings catches places which use a string literal as a potentially writable char *

Re: Package segfaults when built with -O2 but not with -O0

2011-11-19 Thread Ralf Corsepius
On 11/19/2011 01:23 PM, Andrew Haley wrote: On 11/18/2011 11:32 PM, Tom Lane wrote: Andrew Haleya...@redhat.com writes: On 11/18/2011 05:53 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote: pptp.c:459:33: warning: dereferencing type-punned pointer might break strict-aliasing rules [-Wstrict-aliasing] Bingo! Bugs

Re: Package segfaults when built with -O2 but not with -O0

2011-11-19 Thread Ralf Corsepius
On 11/19/2011 06:23 AM, Gregory Maxwell wrote: On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 11:27 PM, Ralf Corsepiusrc040...@freenet.de wrote: [1] -Wstrict-aliasing is one of these cases. The spots such warnings point to, often are broken, but not always, because GCC has difficulties in identifying these. This

Re: Dropping the ownership model

2011-11-22 Thread Ralf Corsepius
On 11/22/2011 06:51 PM, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote: What do people see as pros and cons continuing to use the current package ownership model? ownership = responsibility Would it be practical to dropping it altogether which in essence would make every contributor an proven packager? No.

Re: The Fedora build system and the use of %{_unitdir} in specfiles

2011-11-30 Thread Ralf Corsepius
On 11/30/2011 03:49 PM, Michael Cronenworth wrote: David Howells wrote: rpmbuild. There's your answer. The rpmbuild command would inherit all the packages already installed on your system. You will already have systemd-units installed because it is a dependency of just about every service.

Re: Package segfaults when built with -O2 but not with -O0

2011-12-01 Thread Ralf Corsepius
On 12/01/2011 11:23 AM, Paul Howarth wrote: Ralf, On 11/18/2011 05:53 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote: On 11/18/2011 05:32 PM, Paul Howarth wrote: It already builds with -Wall and there are no warnings: This doesn't mean much. Adding a couple of more agressive options, this is what happens

Re: Package segfaults when built with -O2 but not with -O0

2011-12-01 Thread Ralf Corsepius
On 12/01/2011 07:11 PM, Paul Howarth wrote: On Thu, 01 Dec 2011 15:45:48 +0100 Ralf Corsepiusrc040...@freenet.de wrote: On 12/01/2011 11:23 AM, Paul Howarth wrote: Ralf, On 11/18/2011 05:53 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote: On 11/18/2011 05:32 PM, Paul Howarth wrote: It already builds with -Wall

Re: Orphaning all my packages

2010-08-11 Thread Ralf Corsepius
On 08/12/2010 03:34 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote: Mike McGrath wrote: Luckily Remi got a list: http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2010-August/140708.html Unfortunately, Remi's list only covers php-*, I think there are other affected packages too. He links to pkgdb for the full list,

Re: Where can I find the list of all Fedora Git repos?

2010-08-12 Thread Ralf Corsepius
On 08/12/2010 10:03 AM, Peter Lemenkov wrote: Hello All! It was easy to build whole list of upstream projects available in Fedora - anyone could just look over the contents of this page: http://cvs.fedoraproject.org/viewvc/rpms/ Now it doesn't look that easy. I use

Re: New bodhi release in production

2010-08-12 Thread Ralf Corsepius
On 08/13/2010 01:23 AM, Luke Macken wrote: On 08/12/2010 07:12 PM, Orcan Ogetbil wrote: On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 5:57 PM, Luke Macken wrote: - Minimum time-in-testing requirements - Every day bodhi will look for updates that have been in testing for N days

Re: New bodhi release in production

2010-08-13 Thread Ralf Corsepius
On 08/13/2010 05:10 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote: Ralf Corsepius wrote: I think, for packages that are modified during the testing period, this N should be calculated from the day the last push was made to testing. This would very unhelpful. Yes, this was my initial intention. However, looking

Re: New bodhi release in production

2010-08-13 Thread Ralf Corsepius
On 08/13/2010 06:45 PM, Luke Macken wrote: On 08/13/2010 01:57 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote: On 08/13/2010 01:23 AM, Luke Macken wrote: On 08/12/2010 07:12 PM, Orcan Ogetbil wrote: On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 5:57 PM, Luke Macken wrote: - Minimum time-in-testing requirements

Re: drop default MTA for Fedora 15

2010-08-25 Thread Ralf Corsepius
On 08/25/2010 09:08 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote: Chris Adams wrote: How many users use at or bc (well, I use dc all the time)? Well, at least at is a nice command and some people use it, but… What about ed? … it's time we drop such legacy junk! What you offend as legacy junk is mandated by

Re: drop default MTA for Fedora 15

2010-08-25 Thread Ralf Corsepius
On 08/25/2010 03:05 PM, Andreas Schwab wrote: Ralf Corsepiusrc040...@freenet.de writes: On 08/25/2010 09:08 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote: Chris Adams wrote: How many users use at or bc (well, I use dc all the time)? Well, at least at is a nice command and some people use it, but… What about

Re: Question about sane usage of macroses in perl template

2010-08-27 Thread Ralf Corsepius
On 08/27/2010 10:28 AM, Pavel Alexeev (aka Pahan-Hubbitus) wrote: $ rpmdev-newspec -t perl produce template where, inter alia we have such lines: %{__perl} Makefile.PL INSTALLDIRS=vendor OPTIMIZE=$RPM_OPT_FLAGS make %{?_smp_mflags} I'm wonder why there used mix of macros %{__perl} and

Re: Putting cross compilers into Fedora

2010-09-01 Thread Ralf Corsepius
On 09/01/2010 12:41 PM, David Howells wrote: Would it be worth our while putting into Fedora basic gcc and binutils rpms for cross compilers for all the Linux arches? I keep finding the need to compile kernels for arches other than the x86_64 boxes I normally use, and I keep borrowing

Re: Putting cross compilers into Fedora

2010-09-01 Thread Ralf Corsepius
On 09/01/2010 01:53 PM, Andrew Haley wrote: On 09/01/2010 12:48 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote: On 09/01/2010 12:41 PM, David Howells wrote: Would it be worth our while putting into Fedora basic gcc and binutils rpms for cross compilers for all the Linux arches? I keep finding the need

Re: Putting cross compilers into Fedora

2010-09-01 Thread Ralf Corsepius
On 09/01/2010 02:21 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: On Wed, Sep 01, 2010 at 02:06:37PM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: - Fedora's rpm and some components the build-infrastructure have serious issues related to cross-building. - A cross compiler alone is not worth it, you need a whole zoo of further

Re: Putting cross compilers into Fedora

2010-09-01 Thread Ralf Corsepius
On 09/01/2010 03:02 PM, Rich Mattes wrote: On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 8:46 AM, David Woodhousedw...@infradead.org wrote: There's a reason the 'crosstool' and similar scripts are so bloody sick. Speaking of which, it looks like there's a stalled review of crosstool-ng in the works [1].

Re: Putting cross compilers into Fedora

2010-09-01 Thread Ralf Corsepius
On 09/01/2010 04:37 PM, Gerd Hoffmann wrote: b) To equippe the rpm/yum/mock etc. infrastructure with a mechanism to pull-in foreign binaries into a sys-root (E.g. to install Fedora *.ppc.rpm rpms into /usr/ppc-redhat/sys-root). So far, such mechanism doesn't exist. No need for that eithr.

Re: Why is Coin3d version 3 and Pivy not in Fedora

2010-09-22 Thread Ralf Corsepius
On 09/22/2010 08:32 AM, Prasad H. L. wrote: Hi, I was trying to find out why is coin3d version 3.1.3 (latest stable version) and its python binding (pivy) not in fedora. All I managed to get was a bugzilla thread https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?format=multipleid=458975 which was

Re: Why is Coin3d version 3 and Pivy not in Fedora

2010-09-22 Thread Ralf Corsepius
On 09/22/2010 10:38 AM, Prasad H. L. wrote: On 22 September 2010 13:29, Ralf Corsepiusrc040...@freenet.de wrote: On 09/22/2010 08:32 AM, Prasad H. L. wrote: Hi, I was trying to find out why is coin3d version 3.1.3 (latest stable version) and its python binding (pivy) not in fedora. All I

Re: Why is Coin3d version 3 and Pivy not in Fedora

2010-09-22 Thread Ralf Corsepius
On 09/22/2010 11:06 AM, Prasad H. L. wrote: On 22 September 2010 14:24, Ralf Corsepiusrc040...@freenet.de wrote: On 09/22/2010 10:38 AM, Prasad H. L. wrote: On 22 September 2010 13:29, Ralf Corsepiusrc040...@freenet.dewrote: On 09/22/2010 08:32 AM, Prasad H. L. wrote: Hi, I was

Re: Passing arguments into LDFLAGS

2010-09-22 Thread Ralf Corsepius
On 09/22/2010 02:08 PM, Paul F. Johnson wrote: Hi, I know I can do the likes of export CFLAGS=$CFLAGS -blah and it will pass whatever CFLAGS is plus the argument -blah to the compiler. How do I do this with LDFLAGS. Depends on a build-system's internals. I'm trying to pass --build-id

Re: xulrunner 2.0 in rawhide (F15) bundles several system libs

2010-10-04 Thread Ralf Corsepius
On 10/05/2010 12:37 AM, Adam Williamson wrote: On Mon, 2010-10-04 at 11:08 -0400, Brandon Lozza wrote: That's what i've been saying all day. It's only free software if you change the name, in which case you may loose brand recognition. Imagine if Linus forbid people from calling their OS

Re: xulrunner 2.0 in rawhide (F15) bundles several system libs

2010-10-06 Thread Ralf Corsepius
On 10/06/2010 02:49 PM, Matej Cepl wrote: Ralf Corsepius, Tue, 05 Oct 2010 06:01:09 +0200: Close source school of thinking - Trademarks exist to protect an enterprise's product and to close out copyiers. FLOSS exists to enable people to share. Nonsense, trademarks exists to protect users

Re: trademarks [was: xulrunner 2.0 in rawhide (F15) bundles several system libs]

2010-10-06 Thread Ralf Corsepius
On 10/06/2010 04:08 PM, Michal Schmidt wrote: On Wed, 06 Oct 2010 15:26:59 +0200 Ralf Corsepius wrote: On 10/06/2010 02:49 PM, Matej Cepl wrote: Nonsense, trademarks exists to protect users and to avoid living off somebody else brand recognition. I disagree - trademarks exist to protect

Re: Ubuntu 10.10's installer looks rather nice

2010-10-12 Thread Ralf Corsepius
On 10/12/2010 02:16 PM, Dennis Jacobfeuerborn wrote: On 10/12/2010 10:28 AM, Gerd Hoffmann wrote: Hi, Striving for usability and pleasantness for the untechnical users certainly is a good thing. It gets problematic when you choose to make things technically inferior just to please

Re: Ubuntu 10.10's installer looks rather nice

2010-10-14 Thread Ralf Corsepius
On 10/12/2010 03:56 PM, Dennis Jacobfeuerborn wrote: On 10/12/2010 02:52 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote: On 10/12/2010 02:16 PM, Dennis Jacobfeuerborn wrote: On 10/12/2010 10:28 AM, Gerd Hoffmann wrote: Hi, Striving for usability and pleasantness for the untechnical users certainly

Re: bugzilla bugzappers?

2010-11-03 Thread Ralf Corsepius
On 11/04/2010 03:59 AM, Adam Williamson wrote: On Wed, 2010-11-03 at 22:12 -0400, Orcan Ogetbil wrote: On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 9:55 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: On Wed, 2010-11-03 at 21:02 -0400, Orcan Ogetbil wrote: Maybe it is time to discuss the usefulness of ABRT to Fedora. I think that it

Re: bugzilla bugzappers?

2010-11-04 Thread Ralf Corsepius
On 11/04/2010 07:15 AM, Orcan Ogetbil wrote: On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 1:05 AM, Adam Williamson wrote: I guess what I'm asking is what actual harm/damage are these reports causing, beyond the time it takes to look at the report and figure out whether you can fix it? Why is the fact that people

Re: bugzilla bugzappers?

2010-11-04 Thread Ralf Corsepius
On 11/04/2010 07:55 AM, Adam Williamson wrote: On Thu, 2010-11-04 at 07:41 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote: I'm not sure SNR is the be-all and end-all, really. When it comes to efficiency, it is. In other words, as far as I am concerned, abrt has reduced efficiency of bug-hunting by flooding

Re: bugzilla bugzappers?

2010-11-05 Thread Ralf Corsepius
On 11/05/2010 05:41 PM, Matej Cepl wrote: Orcan Ogetbil, Wed, 03 Nov 2010 21:02:02 -0400: Maybe it is time to discuss the usefulness of ABRT to Fedora. I think that it is a great idea for commercial products such as RHEL, but it obviously did not fit Fedora as is. From what I have seen, the

Re: bugzilla bugzappers?

2010-11-05 Thread Ralf Corsepius
On 11/05/2010 09:46 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote: On Fri, 05 Nov 2010 17:56:51 +0100, Ralf wrote: ABRT It doesn't tell the user that core dumps without reproducer are worthless in most cases but blindly sends out reports Parts of the Fedora user base abuse ABRT in that they refuse to fill

Re: bugzilla bugzappers?

2010-11-05 Thread Ralf Corsepius
On 11/05/2010 08:20 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: On Thu, 2010-11-04 at 17:49 -0400, Orcan Ogetbil wrote: On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 1:51 AM, Peter Lemenkov wrote: 2010/11/4 Orcan Ogetbil : Maybe it is time to discuss the usefulness of ABRT to Fedora. I think that it is a great idea for commercial

Re: bugzilla bugzappers?

2010-11-05 Thread Ralf Corsepius
On 11/05/2010 10:06 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote: On Thu, 04 Nov 2010 23:58:21 +, Jóhann wrote: On behalf of all reporters that have never received a response from a maintainer on a component they have reported against I not only ask the ABRT maintainers to block any reports against those

Re: bugzilla bugzappers?

2010-11-08 Thread Ralf Corsepius
On 11/08/2010 01:34 PM, Jiri Moskovcak wrote: On 11/06/2010 02:53 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote: On 11/05/2010 09:46 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote: On Fri, 05 Nov 2010 17:56:51 +0100, Ralf wrote: ABRT It doesn't tell the user that core dumps without reproducer are worthless in most cases

Re: Packages in need of new maintainers

2012-10-04 Thread Ralf Corsepius
On 10/03/2012 08:23 PM, Jon Ciesla wrote: As a result of FESCO ticket 952*, Lubomir Rintel's 200+ packages are in need of new maintainers. Under normal circumstances we'd simply orphan them all, but given the large number we want to handle this in a more orderly fashion. Please reply to the

Re: Any progress in Software Center in Fedora effort?

2012-10-08 Thread Ralf Corsepius
On 10/08/2012 10:49 AM, Jiri Eischmann wrote: Reindl Harald píše v Ne 07. 10. 2012 v 20:02 +0200: Am 07.10.2012 19:55, schrieb drago01: Maybe maybe not. The point is that a fancy software shop would result into this old mother type of user consider to use fedora. A user ultimately don't care

Re: [Feature Suggestion] UsrMove continued

2012-10-10 Thread Ralf Corsepius
On 10/11/2012 02:44 AM, Adam Williamson wrote: On Wed, 2012-10-10 at 13:11 +0300, Serge wrote: 2012/10/9 tim.lauridsen wrote: So you make your system incompatible with every other Linux distro out there, and with all existing documentation, but to what end? Tidyness? Tidyness, simplicity,

Re: fedpkg / koji error

2012-10-22 Thread Ralf Corsepius
On 10/22/2012 05:56 PM, Tom Callaway wrote: On 10/18/2012 03:57 AM, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: I'd say the current behaviour is the quite bad, as it leads to different results when building with fedpkg and rpmbuild on F18. The real fix afaics would be to revert the change and, if wanted, define

Re: fedpkg / koji error

2012-10-22 Thread Ralf Corsepius
On 10/22/2012 10:43 PM, Tom Callaway wrote: On 10/22/2012 12:09 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote: There is currently no way to undefine a macro at the rpm commandline, rpmbuild --define %{nil} ? Huh, I swear I knew that once. :) Attached is a patch to use the %{nil} behavior instead of setting

Re: [FYI] Motif finally opened under LGPL

2012-10-25 Thread Ralf Corsepius
On 10/25/2012 10:17 AM, Peter Lemenkov wrote: Hello All! Not so long after opening CDE they relicensed (Open)Motif under LGPL. http://sourceforge.net/projects/motif/ Time to rewrite everything with Motif! :) More seriously: Time to move Motif from unpronounceable 3rd party repo into

Re: [FYI] Motif finally opened under LGPL

2012-10-25 Thread Ralf Corsepius
On 10/25/2012 02:14 PM, Matthew Miller wrote: On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 10:44:13AM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: Time to move Motif from unpronounceable 3rd party repo into Fedora and to consider rebuilding all lesstif-linked packages against it ;) Are there any particular drawbacks to lesstif

Re: [FYI] Motif finally opened under LGPL

2012-10-25 Thread Ralf Corsepius
On 10/25/2012 03:43 PM, Matthew Miller wrote: On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 03:20:01PM +0200, Gerd Hoffmann wrote: Are there any particular drawbacks to lesstif at this point? It's been a few years I looked at this, but the lesstif implementation was incomlete/buggy and some apps didn't run properly

Re: Anaconda is totally trashing the F18 schedule (was Re: f18: how to install into a LVM partitions (or RAID))

2012-11-01 Thread Ralf Corsepius
On 10/31/2012 11:00 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 10:59:54AM -0700, Jesse Keating wrote: I think we need to give developers more time for feature integration after the feature freeze. +1 No matter whether we increase the length of development or not, the time between

Re: Rolling release model philosophy (was Re: Anaconda is totally trashing the F18 schedule (was Re: f18: how to install into a LVM partitions (or RAID)))

2012-11-05 Thread Ralf Corsepius
On 11/05/2012 01:11 AM, Matěj Cepl wrote: On Fri, 02 Nov 2012 20:55:38 +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote: and one stable release ( valid for 2 maybe 3 years ) for those in the community that want something they dont constantly having to upgrade to and can deploy on their servers. ( ofcourse to

Re: Revamping the non responsive maintainer process

2012-11-06 Thread Ralf Corsepius
On 11/06/2012 02:24 PM, Vít Ondruch wrote: Dne 6.11.2012 14:17, Aleksandar Kurtakov napsal(a): - Original Message - From: Vít Ondruch vondr...@redhat.com To: devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Sent: Tuesday, November 6, 2012 2:56:18 PM Subject: Re: Revamping the non responsive maintainer

Re: Revamping the non responsive maintainer process

2012-11-07 Thread Ralf Corsepius
On 11/07/2012 09:49 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote: Dne 6.11.2012 16:04, Ralf Corsepius napsal(a): On 11/06/2012 02:24 PM, Vít Ondruch wrote: Dne 6.11.2012 14:17, Aleksandar Kurtakov napsal(a): - Original Message - From: Vít Ondruch vondr...@redhat.com To: devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Sent

Re: Fedora 18 Beta to slip by two weeks, Beta release date is now Nov 27

2012-11-09 Thread Ralf Corsepius
On 11/10/2012 01:30 AM, Adam Williamson wrote: On Sat, 2012-11-10 at 00:52 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote: Adam Williamson wrote: So, since Fedora has existed, Anaconda's memory requirements have increased by at least an order of magnitude! How's that NOT skyrocketing? You're being pretty

Re: Fedora 18 Beta to slip by two weeks, Beta release date is now Nov 27

2012-11-09 Thread Ralf Corsepius
On 11/10/2012 05:36 AM, Adam Williamson wrote: On Sat, 2012-11-10 at 05:22 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote: On 11/10/2012 01:30 AM, Adam Williamson wrote: On Sat, 2012-11-10 at 00:52 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote: Adam Williamson wrote: So, since Fedora has existed, Anaconda's memory requirements

Re: macros.cmake: set -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=ReleaseWithDebInfo by default

2012-11-12 Thread Ralf Corsepius
On 11/13/2012 05:05 AM, Richard Shaw wrote: On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 4:46 PM, Rex Dieter rdie...@math.unl.edu mailto:rdie...@math.unl.edu wrote: See also, https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=875954 orionp and I were discussing on irc today, the idea to add

Re: macros.cmake: set -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=ReleaseWithDebInfo by default

2012-11-13 Thread Ralf Corsepius
On 11/13/2012 02:48 PM, Richard Shaw wrote: On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 11:14 PM, Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de mailto:rc040...@freenet.de wrote: On 11/13/2012 05:05 AM, Richard Shaw wrote: I own several packages that use cmake and I've taken to setting the release type

Re: LibRaw: possible license issues

2012-11-26 Thread Ralf Corsepius
On 11/26/2012 07:29 PM, Debarshi Ray wrote: Why does it matter? Their code hasn't changed, and has not become GPLv3. The package is GPLv3+. It matters because Shotwell links to GStreamer. GStreamer applications either opt for LGPLv2+ or GPLv2+ with exceptions because they might end up using

Re: LibRaw: possible license issues

2012-11-26 Thread Ralf Corsepius
On 11/26/2012 07:54 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote: On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 07:40:10PM +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote: I am not familiar with gstreamer's internals, but AFAIIK, these plugins aren't linked, but dlopen'ed. Otherwise these plugins would not be plugins ;) The difference

Re: I want upgrade my computer

2012-11-29 Thread Ralf Corsepius
On 11/29/2012 05:47 PM, Sérgio Basto wrote: Hi, I have two machines for test on at home and one at office , I want upgrade to F18 Beta . 1 - Try Preupgrade but No preupgrade for F17-F18 ? http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2012-August/109441.html

Re: Where are we going? (Not a rant)

2012-12-07 Thread Ralf Corsepius
On 12/08/2012 06:07 AM, M. Edward (Ed) Borasky wrote: On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 7:26 PM, Arun SAG saga...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 5:32 AM, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson johan...@gmail.com wrote: If we want to solve this we need to release an Fedora LTS release for our and the

Re: Where are we going? (Not a rant)

2012-12-08 Thread Ralf Corsepius
On 12/08/2012 05:31 PM, Michael Scherer wrote: Le samedi 08 décembre 2012 à 05:12 -0800, Dan Mashal a écrit : In fact, I never heard anyone complaining about kde is dying while the numbers are much more worrisome : http://www.ohloh.net/p/kde/contributors/summary Maybe that's caused by

Re: Where are we going? (Not a rant)

2012-12-08 Thread Ralf Corsepius
On 12/09/2012 12:20 AM, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote: On 12/08/2012 05:51 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote: My primary problem with Fedora isn't lack of stability, but lack of API/ABI and UI-stability/persistence/sustainability between upgrades. In other words, I can cope with the number of crashes

Re: fltk

2012-12-19 Thread Ralf Corsepius
On 12/19/2012 04:22 PM, Susi Lehtola wrote: On Thu, 20 Dec 2012 01:12:38 +1000 Adrian vk4...@bigpond.com wrote: Please guys get your act together on fltk, the yum build is ridiculous; [root@fedora18desk ~]# fltk-config --ldflags -Wl,-z,relro -lfltk should be (built from source)

Re: Summary/Minutes for today's FESCo meeting (2012-12-19)

2012-12-20 Thread Ralf Corsepius
On 12/21/2012 12:27 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote: On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 10:30:37PM +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: Thanks, but I think the bit I'm mising is why can't systemd use libexec? (Apart from their declaration that libexec is wrong or not the de-facto standard they themselves made up,

Re: Summary/Minutes for today's FESCo meeting (2012-12-19)

2012-12-20 Thread Ralf Corsepius
On 12/21/2012 01:15 AM, Matthew Miller wrote: On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 04:05:36PM -0800, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: As I said in the meeting, libexec is somewhat of a red herring here. The packaging guidelines already allow substituting subdirs of %_libdir for %_libexecdir. What's in question is

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >