On 05/23/2009 09:41 AM, Björn Persson wrote:
Johan Cwiklinski wrote:
gcompris is an educationnal software, for 2 years old and more children.
Flags usage to select language is not exactly part of the educational
side the soft, but it's also part of it (think that a two years old
child may
On 05/26/2009 10:27 PM, Iain Arnell wrote:
On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 7:10 AM, Tim Lauridsen
tim.laurid...@googlemail.com wrote:
soft-deps (Suggests/Recommends) is really hard to handle at the depsolver
level. A depsolver need to now the hard ones, not stuff like 'it would look
very nice to have
On 05/27/2009 01:24 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Wed, 2009-05-27 at 15:07 -0400, Seth Vidal wrote:
I can't wait to see how we depsolve through:
yum update:
- foo is updated and recommends bar
- bar conflicts with baz which is also in the update
but I'm sure we'll muddle through - provided
On 05/29/2009 04:24 AM, Chitlesh GOORAH wrote:
On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 1:12 PM, Kushal Das wrote:
Yes that is true , but it does not provide any support to view that
content, we have many other packages in Fedora which allows to
download content and they download whatever format the site is
On 05/29/2009 09:47 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
There is a solution to this particular point, which it seems many who
use kmods don't seem to know about: akmods. Install the akmod for your
kmod, and if the pre-built kmod hasn't yet been updated when a new
kernel is released, the akmod handles
On 05/31/2009 06:22 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Adam Williamson wrote:
FWIW, I've definitely never seen a Suggests(post) (or anything other
than a plain Suggests:) in Mandriva, and I don't recall seeing a
versioned one either. So it's not something I'd put much thought into.
Your caveats about
On 06/04/2009 02:01 AM, Tim Waugh wrote:
My own opinion is that the package maintainer is responsible for
reporting bugs upstream when they are able to reproduce them.
One reason for my belief is that I've seen the situation from the other
side: as an upstream maintainer for a package,
On 06/04/2009 01:30 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Jud Craft wrote:
Support != upstream. It's a symptom of the fact that the open source
community is where people who create goods often don't do top-down
support of those goods to end-users, the final recipient.
Here's the problem: You all agree
On 06/04/2009 01:11 PM, Julian Sikorski wrote:
Bill Nottingham pisze:
(If you've never used a construct like %if 0%{?fedora} in your spec
file, you can disregard this message.)
Many packages in Fedora use release-based conditionals such as:
...
%if 0%{?rhel}
%endif
%if 0%{?fedora} 10
On 06/05/2009 10:51 AM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
We are trying out a meeting irc bot plugin to handle meetings in a more
consisent and timely manner.
You can find a copy of the meeting output at:
http://www.scrye.com/~kevin/fedora/fedora-meeting/2009/fedora-meeting.2009-06-05-17.00.html
We
On 06/05/2009 10:31 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
It seems to me it'd make sense to convert all these kinds of snippets
into macros. Am I right, or is there a reason against doing this?
If I'm right, I'm happy to work on this and contribute it as patches to
the relevant packages, or as a new
On 06/05/2009 11:59 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Fri, 2009-06-05 at 11:43 -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
The way to get these changed is to first go through the Packaging
Committee to get the changes approved, then have the macros merged into
the packages that will provide them. Then patch
On 06/06/2009 08:27 PM, King InuYasha wrote:
Dan, the developer of Enano CMS, which I am packaging, has said that if
you guys and myself can identify all the places a 3rd party bundled
library worthy of being separated is, he will add the APIs necessary to
support linking out to 3rd party
On 06/08/2009 11:48 AM, Fernando Lopez-Lezcano wrote:
On Mon, 2009-06-08 at 11:55 -0600, Rich Megginson wrote:
Kevin Kofler wrote:
Fernando Lopez-Lezcano wrote:
On Wed, 2009-04-29 at 00:40 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Neal Becker wrote:
rpmdb: Program version 4.7 doesn't
On 06/08/2009 02:28 PM, Rich Megginson wrote:
Ok, that got me further, but I'm still failing. I had to do rpm --force
-Uvh net-snmp*.fedorabuilder.x86_64.rpm
But I'm stuck on rpm - both yum and rpm install are failing:
liblua-5.1.so()(64bit) is needed by
On 06/09/2009 06:51 AM, Rich Megginson wrote:
Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
The header files for popt are in the main popt package in RHEL5/CentOS5
so that's what actually needs to be required in this instance, not
popt-devel.
Can I just do rpm --nodeps -Uvh rpm*.rpm?
That seems like it should
On 06/09/2009 07:20 AM, Matthias Clasen wrote:
On Tue, 2009-06-09 at 16:06 +0200, Christoph Wickert wrote:
My anger is because people don't honor our packaging guidelines not even
if they are asked to do so. The guidelines are very clear in this case:
Multiple packages have files in a common
Hi all,
Assuming all goes well with an account system upgrade this week, we're
going to be updating the PackageDB to 0.4 on Monday, June 10. An outage
notification will go out later that tells the exact times. This is just
a note that anyone who has scripts hitting the package database for
On 06/12/2009 08:14 AM, Christoph Wickert wrote:
Am Freitag, den 12.06.2009, 05:34 +0200 schrieb Kevin Kofler:
I don't see what it buys our users if they get one big update over 2 small
ones.
In most cases the biggest part (consuming time and cpu cycles) of the
updates is not installing
There will be an outage starting at 2009-06-15 23:00 UTC, which will last
approximately 1.5 hours.
To convert UTC to your local time, take a look at
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Infrastructure/UTCHowto
or run:
date -d '2009-06-15 23:00 UTC'
Affected Services:
Buildsystem
Websites
I'm planning on updating the python-decorator package from 2.3.x to
3.0.x. This update breaks API in:
1) Some python-2.6 specific functionality
2) Some seldom used idioms.
This update is necessary for python-repoze-what-pylons:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=499486
a component
On 06/15/2009 07:19 AM, Florian Festi wrote:
There is one more thing left: Noarch sub packages should - most likely -
be reflected in the Packaging and the Package Review Guidelines. I - as
a RPM developer - really don't have a opinion how the Fedora Guidelines
should look like and I also
On 06/17/2009 08:10 PM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
See the Fedora Foundations [1] and Objectives [2] page. If we're truly
about being on the leading edge, being innovative, etc., the main target
of Fedora should be current hardware, even if older hardware is still
supported. The only *current*
On 06/18/2009 02:41 PM, Christoph Wickert wrote:
There is no SIG yet because A SIG needs APPROVAL from the board. But
there already are couple of people interested: Marc Wiriadisastra, Simon
Wesp, Sebastian Vahl and two people from the LXDE team who have joined
Fedora recently but are still
On 06/23/2009 01:33 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
On 06/24/2009 01:59 AM, Todd Zullinger wrote:
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
On 06/23/2009 11:36 PM, topdog wrote:
Author: topdog
Update of /cvs/pkgs/rpms/php-pecl-geoip/devel
In directory cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com:/tmp/cvs-serv2525/devel
On the
On 07/03/2009 03:27 AM, Miroslav Lichvar wrote:
I'd like to update readline to the latest version 6.0. The problem is
that the license was changed to GPLv3+ and we have some GPLv2 packages
using readline.
A possible replacement is the editline library which provides a
compatible interface
On 07/04/2009 03:22 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Wed, Jul 01, 2009 at 12:40:44PM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
No, not if they bundle the generated auto* files with their tarballs, as
they are supposed to do.
They're not supposed to do that. Don't make stuff up.
It's true there are
On 07/06/2009 11:28 AM, Todd Zullinger wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com writes:
Why we should approve manually requests to watching bugzilla and
cvs changes for packages? I'm sure we need to change policy in
order to automatically approve all such requests.
Isn't
On 07/06/2009 02:53 PM, Sam Varshavchik wrote:
Adam Jackson writes:
On Sun, 2009-07-05 at 18:50 -0400, Sam Varshavchik wrote:
Richard W.M. Jones writes:
On Sun, Jul 05, 2009 at 10:45:46AM -0400, Sam Varshavchik wrote:
What line number changes? You cut a patch against configure, and
On 07/06/2009 03:07 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:
Bugzilla spam. If we keep the release open for random bug filing, we
have no good way of telling bugzilla that only specific users should get
bugs for specific releases of Fedora. Ownership is at a product level,
not at the product version level.
On 07/07/2009 09:45 AM, Braden McDaniel wrote:
On Tue, 2009-07-07 at 01:17 -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
Perhaps but it doesn't decrease the work that the maintainer has to do.
It very well might if Fedora upgrades to a new autoconf, automake, or
libtool that is not 100% backward compatible
On 07/14/2009 04:16 AM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 11:48:33 +0200, Michael wrote:
* Delivery to the following recipient failed permanently:
beagle-owner AT fedoraproject DOT org
Recipient address rejected:
User unknown in local recipient table (state 14).
On 07/14/2009 01:48 PM, Josh Boyer wrote:
On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 10:32:08PM +0200, Till Maas wrote:
On Tue July 14 2009, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
JK == Jesse Keating jkeat...@redhat.com writes:
JK At 7000+ srpms there is no way I could evaluate each and every one
JK for validity before
On 07/19/2009 10:02 AM, Ville-Pekka Vainio wrote:
su, 2009-07-19 kello 16:43 +, Rawhide Report kirjoitti:
mozvoikko-0.9.7-0.3.rc1.fc12.i586 requires gecko-libs = 0:1.9.1
What's the problem here? If I do a 'repoquery --disablerepo \*
--enablerepo rawhide --whatprovides gecko-libs =
On 07/23/2009 06:43 PM, Braden McDaniel wrote:
On Tue, 2009-07-21 at 13:35 -0400, Tom spot Callaway wrote:
On 07/21/2009 12:06 PM, Braden McDaniel wrote:
On Mon, 2009-07-20 at 20:11 -0700, Jesse Keating wrote:
[snip]
Orphan: pcmanx-gtk2
gnash-plugin requires /usr/lib/mozilla/plugins
On 07/26/2009 01:52 PM, Conrad Meyer wrote:
On Sunday 26 July 2009 01:47:55 pm Richard Fearn wrote:
Hi,
I've just had an EL-5 branch created for my disktype[1] package. The
new branch is a copy of the devel branch, so the NVR is currently
disktype-9-5.
Should I build the package as-is (so
/gmane.linux.redhat.fedora.devel/67465
(2007-10-26, started by Toshio Kuratomi)
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.redhat.fedora.devel/94641
(2008-10-12, started by Patrice Dumas)
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.redhat.fedora.devel/116848
(2009-07-06, started by me)
--
With best regards, Peter Lemenkov
On 07/28/2009 03:48 PM, Mat Booth wrote:
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 11:42 PM, Mat Boothfed...@matbooth.co.uk wrote:
Well, we should probably make sure maven still works since a bunch of
projects probably depend on this to build, so I can take these.
I'm fast becoming a one man Java SIG. :-/
On 07/29/2009 01:59 AM, Till Maas wrote:
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 01:54:20PM -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
It was in my post to the last thread::
Is someone in a position to verify whether setting security flags on a
bug prevents someone who would be put in the CC list by the default cc
On 07/29/2009 08:20 AM, Till Maas wrote:
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 07:12:00AM -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
On 07/29/2009 07:05 AM, Till Maas wrote:
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 06:30:27AM -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
Is the same thing true of watching a person? till, I'm now watching
till
On 07/29/2009 08:41 PM, Peter Lemenkov wrote:
2009/7/29 Toshio Kuratomi a.bad...@gmail.com:
Okay, please test this with a package that has people on the initial CC
list so we've tested precisely the behaviour people are concerned about.
If the initialcclist is not set when a security bug
python-fedora-0.3.14 is the last release that will be GPLv2.
Future releases will be LGPLv2+. This is a move to a more permissive
license so there shouldn't be any new incompatibilities.
-Toshio
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
On 07/31/2009 01:01 PM, Josh Boyer wrote:
On Sat, Aug 01, 2009 at 01:20:12AM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
On 08/01/2009 01:14 AM, Jesse Keating wrote:
On Sat, 2009-08-01 at 00:58 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
I don't think anybody is going to argue that extracting source from srpm
or pulling
On 07/31/2009 01:47 PM, Josh Boyer wrote:
On Sat, Aug 01, 2009 at 02:00:10AM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Even if they do want to go to this extend, we don't need to grant them
special exceptions. We can recommend that the projects used a proper
project hosting facility and leave it at that.
On 07/31/2009 01:48 PM, Josh Boyer wrote:
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 01:09:43PM -0700, Jesse Keating wrote:
On Sat, 2009-08-01 at 01:20 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
That's kind of side tracking though. Point is that SRPM as upstream
source is simply a stupid thing. We would complain loudly or
On 08/03/2009 02:19 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
The following packages in the repository suffer from broken dependencies:
==
The results in this summary consider Test Updates!
On 08/05/2009 11:47 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
And maintainers can choose whether or not they
want to take on the work of shipping updates in the adventurous
repository.
How does this work? It would seem that the adventurous repository would
be mandatory as something that changes ABI would
On 08/05/2009 12:11 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Wed, 2009-08-05 at 11:58 -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
Also, having the expectation that the other repository is for security
updates doesn't address the problem of a security release breaking ABI.
That's rather unlikely (well, except
On 08/05/2009 01:04 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Wed, 2009-08-05 at 12:44 -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
Sure, this is comparable to the present situation. But it doesn't seem
like it makes things much better.
* It doesn't solve the original poster's issue (that the GNOME stack
isn't
On 08/05/2009 02:26 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Wed, 2009-08-05 at 13:25 -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
Sure. I'm just pointing out that you're trying to solve a different
problem than either the original poster or Thorsten. (And now that I
understand your problem better, perhaps yours
On 08/06/2009 09:43 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Thu, 2009-08-06 at 09:24 -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
We either have to make it clear which policy we use and which policy we
don't, and hence which theoretical user base we are not targeting, or
take on extra work and try to satisfy both. I am
On 08/10/2009 12:36 PM, Adam Jackson wrote:
pygtk2 implements a function called gtk.gdk.get_pixels_array(), which
returns the pixel contents of a GDK pixbuf as a numpy array. Fine and
dandy, but this means it links against numpy (7 megs) which is itself
linked against atlas (12 megs). Kind
On 08/16/2009 11:52 AM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Mon, 17 Aug 2009 00:30:31 +0900, Mamoru wrote:
Michael Schwendt wrote, at 08/16/2009 11:47 PM +9:00:
On Sun, 16 Aug 2009 22:39:37 +0900, Mamoru wrote:
Michael Schwendt wrote, at 08/16/2009 09:29 PM +9:00:
On Sun, 16 Aug 2009 14:04:14
On 08/20/2009 04:18 AM, Josh Boyer wrote:
On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 10:19:39AM +0100, Peter Robinson wrote:
Is it just me or are there some packages that seem to be eternally on
this list? beage/f-spot/tomboy never seem to go anywhere.
They're eternally broken on ppc64. Mostly due to Mono
On 08/23/2009 10:06 AM, Michel Salim wrote:
Hi Adam,
Thanks for the wonderful fedora-pkgdb search engine! I was wondering --
since it's a standard opensearch plugin, whether it would be a good idea
or not to make it auto-discoverable on *.fedoraproject.org, especially
On 08/23/2009 10:50 AM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Aren't we pitching Fedora Community interface as the end user facing
thing, going forward? It seems some of these features will overlap or
duplicate it.
It's possible. The packagedb is going to be the backend for the Fedora
Community Front end
On 08/24/2009 07:31 AM, Matthias Clasen wrote:
On Mon, 2009-08-24 at 14:36 +0200, drago01 wrote:
On Sun, Aug 23, 2009 at 9:35 PM, Toshio Kuratomia.bad...@gmail.com wrote:
On 08/23/2009 10:50 AM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Aren't we pitching Fedora Community interface as the end user facing
thing,
On 08/26/2009 02:33 AM, drago01 wrote:
On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 11:07 AM, Martin Bacovskymbaco...@redhat.com wrote:
On Monday 24 August 2009 14:36:09 drago01 wrote:
On Sun, Aug 23, 2009 at 9:35 PM, Toshio Kuratomia.bad...@gmail.com wrote:
On 08/23/2009 10:50 AM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Aren't
On 09/02/2009 08:47 AM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
Michel Alexandre Salim (michael.silva...@gmail.com) said:
Multi-ownership seems *far* preferable to me than using triggers to
move files around, or moving a prelink-specific directory to the base
filesystem package.
Then the guidelines should
Over the past few months, Fedora Infrastructure has been discussing
having a consistent set of licenses for applications and scripts we
create for Fedora. The goals of doing this were to
* Be able to share code among the various programs that we write.
* Not have our libraries force a specific
On 09/10/2009 05:14 AM, Martin Gieseking wrote:
Hi,
I'd like to see the distributed SCM Fossil (www.fossil-scm.org)
packaged for Fedora because I find the concept of the tool quite
attractive. There was already a review request for it in bugzilla:
On 09/15/2009 04:44 AM, Josephine Tannhäuser wrote:
Hey,
I googled for it and found Karims blogpost and Simon aka kassamedias answer
(comment 3)
http://kparal.wordpress.com/2009/09/01/zsync-transfer-large-files-efficiently/
I will note that the reply is not quite right. We can have
On 09/15/2009 01:10 PM, Rex Dieter wrote:
Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
This would be great if maintainers were willing to fix issues after the
fact. Look at rsync -- there's no incentive to fix the library issue at
this point because rsync is already in the distribution. We need to fix
On 09/16/2009 12:42 AM, Tomas Mraz wrote:
On Tue, 2009-09-15 at 14:01 -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
On 09/15/2009 01:29 PM, Simo Sorce wrote:
Sorry but the packager may have no way to influence upstream.
And to be honest having a huge patch against rsync and/or zsync to
extract a library
On 09/16/2009 08:39 AM, Simo Sorce wrote:
On Wed, 2009-09-16 at 08:10 -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
This is a logical leap. rsync has forked zlib but they are only using
the fork internally. 2 and 3 get that fork out in the open so that
more
than one program can use it. 2 and 3
On 09/17/2009 07:48 AM, R P Herrold wrote:
2009/7/13 Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com:
The Infrastructure group has a rather ongoing project to try and find a
really good calendar server system (and then, obviously, package it)
...
It's proved a bit tricky, though, to find a really
Hi, is jgranado reading this list or anyone know where he is?
We're having a problem with the way he's setup his FAS account and
bugzilla account. If he can get in touch with me I can straighten
everything out. If not, we'll eventually need to orphan his packages to
stop the errors we're
On 09/22/2009 02:43 AM, Martin Gieseking wrote:
Am 21.09.2009 23:24, Till Maas wrote:
On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 04:58:32PM -0400, Casey Dahlin wrote:
On 09/21/2009 04:04 PM, Till Maas wrote:
On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 08:47:24PM +0200, Martin Gieseking wrote:
during the review of ncrack
On 09/23/2009 09:46 PM, James Antill wrote:
On Wed, 2009-09-23 at 17:22 +0200, Till Maas wrote:
This is all under the assumption, that delta rpm creation from a xz
compressed rpm to a gzip compressed rpm works.
Yeh, I don't know the answer to that. I'd _guess_ that it would work,
but
On 09/29/2009 05:00 AM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
On 09/29/2009 05:14 PM, Josephine Tannhäuser wrote:
Seems that violations of the guidelines are not so important like the
violation of the Trademark (The hunting of fedora related sites, like
blogs or forums with adhesions contracts)... Are the
On 09/29/2009 11:37 AM, Michel Alexandre Salim wrote:
Hi,
Oolite http://oolite.org is currently undergoing review, and a
stumbling block is in its use of its own copy of libjs. An upstream
developer is participating in the review and has a clear explanation
for the rationale:
On 09/29/2009 12:51 AM, Peter Robinson wrote:
On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 2:33 AM, Bernie Innocenti ber...@codewiz.org wrote:
Hello,
the sugar-pippy rpm in Fedora depends on pygame, which is used by some
of the examples.
So far, so good, but pygame in turn depends on numpy, a 7.7MB package
On 09/29/2009 01:52 PM, Peter Robinson wrote:
On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 9:45 PM, Toshio Kuratomi a.bad...@gmail.com wrote:
I admit I'm not following sugar and numpy discussions too closely so I
might have missed it but I don't remember this. I do remember talking
about removing the numpy
On 09/29/2009 02:11 PM, Peter Robinson wrote:
rawhide, I think the numpy support was just dropped from pygtk2 as
opposed to fixing the dependencies in numpy themselves. numpy still
depends on atlas and various other stuff. I'm not sure what the impact
of either changes are, I'd have to dig
On 09/29/2009 05:38 PM, Steve Dickson wrote:
On 09/29/2009 08:17 PM, John Poelstra wrote:
[...snip...]
I want to be perfectly clear that I'm not sounding an all clear on
this by any means. If your answer here means that this change hasn't
been thoroughly tested, you're going to have a hard
On 09/30/2009 10:43 AM, Michael Schroeder wrote:
On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 10:27:44AM -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
So... that means the custom zlib isn't necessary to the proper operation
of deltarpm, correct? I haven't looked at where in the code this is
being used yet but I'm guessing
On 09/29/2009 09:24 AM, James Antill wrote:
On Tue, 2009-09-29 at 08:07 -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
On 09/29/2009 05:00 AM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
On 09/29/2009 05:14 PM, Josephine Tannhäuser wrote:
Seems that violations of the guidelines are not so important like the
violation
On 09/30/2009 11:34 AM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
On 09/30/2009 10:43 AM, Michael Schroeder wrote:
AFAIK the current rpm uses the system's zlib library, so the
deltarpm copy is also no longer needed for Fedora.
Interesting. That's slightly puzzling though. That would mean that
deltarpm
On 10/01/2009 03:10 AM, Josephine Tannhäuser wrote:
2009/9/14 Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com
Hi, everyone. We - the QA group - have recently been researching the
feasibility of using zsync to reduce the size of live image downloads.
This has hit a roadblock in the form of the problem
On 10/01/2009 09:42 AM, Jonathan Underwood wrote:
2009/10/1 Toshio Kuratomi a.bad...@gmail.com:
A) You're a coder and want to get your hands dirty with the rsync
protocol. Check out how librsync manages to use the system zlib and if
possible to do this compatibly, apply it to zsync and rsync
On 10/01/2009 11:11 AM, Jesse Keating wrote:
On Oct 1, 2009, at 10:59, Josh Boyer jwbo...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Oct 01, 2009 at 01:15:09PM -0400, David Malcolm wrote:
Scoping:
- this work would target Fedora 13. I'd avoid pushing it into F12
until it's proven safe to do so
I'm
On 10/01/2009 10:15 AM, David Malcolm wrote:
Proposal: Python 3 in Fedora 13
Evolutionary, not revolutionary: build a python 3 stack
parallel-installable with the python 2 stack.
First: Overall +1.
Note: liberally snipped, throughout.
= Proposal =
Where I would draw the line is on
On 10/02/2009 08:48 AM, Colin Walters wrote:
On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 9:20 AM, Haïkel Guémar karlthe...@gmail.com wrote:
*BSD, fellow GNU/Linux distro like Debian [...] are able to ship multiples
python stacks
In Debian's case of course there are actually *two* separate Python systems
;)
On 10/02/2009 02:28 PM, Michel Alexandre Salim wrote:
Since yum is available during build, this would work (but is fugly):
- build as normal
- push out python2 files to buildroot
- after everything else is done, yum remove python-devel yum
install python3-devel
- build python3 modules
On 10/02/2009 04:53 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
A important oddness of the feature process is that it is not actually
necessary for the feature to be in the distribution. So you send a nag
mail, feature owners ignores it, you drop the feature and the
functionality is still there. So unless the
Hi,
Anyone want to trade reviews for two zikula packages? We want to get
them approved and in so that Fedora Insight can be deployed with them
for Fedora 12. Mel Chua and Rahul are in charge of them but I packaged
one of them and the other I reworked a bit. I don't feel comfortable
reviewing
I've been a comaintainer of the python-setuptools package for a long time
and recently became the owner when icon relinquished it. It is currently a
tumultuous time for distributing python modules with a new and active
maintainer for distutils inside of the python stdlib and a fork of
setuptools
On Sat, Oct 10, 2009 at 10:17:16AM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Sat, 2009-10-10 at 18:05 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 07:47:59 -0700, Adam wrote:
Of course, that turns the larger question into 'why do we put i686
-devel packages in the x86-64 repo, not just
On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 12:52:30PM +0100, Mat Booth wrote:
I was unaware of all this. Is there a reason why the setuptools author
will not grant commit rights to others? Going solely on your email it
seems like a fork would be unnecessary if he was willing to share the
workload...
He
On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 01:21:38PM -0400, Adam Jackson wrote:
atropine:~% repoquery --whatprovides 'pkgconfig(xext)'
libXext-devel-0:1.0.99.4-3.fc12.i686
atropine:~% repoquery --requires libXext-devel | grep pkg
pkgconfig
pkgconfig(x11)
pkgconfig(xextproto)
So, whatever. Clearly the
On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 08:59:13AM +0100, Peter Robinson wrote:
On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 8:55 AM, Conrad Meyer ceme...@u.washington.edu
wrote:
If they're not on any of the official spins, what benefit does tagging them
into dist-f12 provide over having them as updates? (Pushing updates is
On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 12:58:39PM +0800, Steven James Drinnan wrote:
I recently installed gestikk. And to my horror one of the dialogs said.
(Check Box) F*** off
No lie,
So how does one recommend that this be removed.
What we'll probably do is patch the code to have a less obscene
On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 10:29:46PM +0200, Haïkel Guémar wrote:
Le 16/10/2009 19:19, Toshio Kuratomi a écrit :
On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 12:58:39PM +0800, Steven James Drinnan wrote:
I recently installed gestikk. And to my horror one of the dialogs said.
(Check Box) F*** off
No lie
On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 11:23:45AM -0400, Darryl L. Pierce wrote:
Is there any process for handing over package ownership? I have a
package that I'm wanting to give to another maintainer. Can I simply
reassign ownership to him, or is there something else needed first?
Note, if you want to
On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 10:11:37AM +0100, Steven Whitehouse wrote:
Hi,
Jim Parsons left Red Hat a little while back and the only contact
details I have is his Red Hat email address, which is of course no
longer valid. I've opened a bugzilla #530027 as per the unresponsive
maintainer
On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 04:46:36PM +0200, Martin Bacovsky wrote:
On Thursday 22 October 2009 16:33:06 you wrote:
I like this concept. How does it relate to tagging?
* As a replacement for tagging
* As a separate feature from tagging
* In addition to tagging where some output utilizes
On Sat, Oct 24, 2009 at 02:37:57AM +0200, Milos Jakubicek wrote:
Newpackage (some of them even for months!):
python-decorator3
Please do not rebuild this one. It's currently just a forwards compat
package for EL-5. I'll dead.package the devel package soon.
zikula-module-filterutil
Please
On Sat, Oct 31, 2009 at 09:33:13AM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Sat, 2009-10-31 at 09:29 -0500, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
That is very useful information. It sounds like I will want to do this for
this package, since enabling sse2 will turn on the sse instructions and sse2
might turn out
On Thu, Nov 05, 2009 at 10:43:58AM -0500, Steve Grubb wrote:
On Thursday 05 November 2009 10:27:30 am Bill Nottingham wrote:
Steve Grubb (sgr...@redhat.com) said:
I have 2 bugzillas asking for %verify to be added to %config files. I am
wondering if this is a good idea at all. The issue is
On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 02:56:42PM -0500, James Laska wrote:
Greetings folks,
After careful review by Will Woods around recently discovered problems
related to preupgrading to Fedora 12, I've filed ticket#270
(https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/270) for discussion at the next
FESCO
1 - 100 of 138 matches
Mail list logo
