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
17 matches
Mail list logo
