DC == David Cantrell dcantr...@redhat.com writes:
DC I was using 'unused-patches' until the packaging guidelines had us
DC change Patch lines to use %{name} if that applied.
Please quote chapter and verse there. I don't recall any guidelines
requiring such a thing.
- J
--
fedora-devel-list
MB == Mat Booth fed...@matbooth.co.uk writes:
MB Here is a list of review requests that are not yet assigned to a
MB reviewer:
Rather than huge bugzilla queries, why not just
http://fedoraproject.org/PackageReviewStatus/ ?
- J
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
I'm having a problem building the current zsh srpm
(zsh-4.3.10-4.fc13.src.rpm) on my local builder, which runs F11-x86_64
and has mock-0.9.18-1.fc11.noarch. On IRC, a user reported the same
problem, only his builder runs CentOS 5.4 and has
mock-0.9.14-2.el5.noarch. Surprisingly, the same srpm
RM == Roland McGrath rol...@redhat.com writes:
RM That is job control weirdness. Something about the state of tty
RM magic is different in the two different contexts where you run the
RM test.
Unfortunately that level of magic is mostly beyond me.
RM The things to look at are whether the
TC == Tom \spot\ Callaway tcall...@redhat.com writes:
TC It probably merits a separate entry, because it is a rather thorough
TC public domain declaration.
Does this have any of the issues that public domain has with respect to
people who live in countries where they cannot disclaim all of
IRP == Itamar Reis Peixoto ita...@ispbrasil.com.br writes:
IRP because renaming it will cause problems,
Actually not if done in conjunction with a release bump, such as we do
with a mass rebuild.
- J
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
A question occurred to me after doing a review recently about whether
Erlang source is compiled and linked together like C source or whether
the source files remain separate like, say, Python. The issue is an
Erlang package where some source files are LGPLv3+ but one is GPLv2+. I
took the safe
Does Fedora as a distro need to package AGPL (v3, if it matters)
software in any specific way to meet the requirements of the license?
Or do we simply provide a package (and src.rpm) and leave it up to the
person installing the software to make sure they comply?
- J
RK == Rudolf Kastl che...@gmail.com writes:
RK 2. qstat and torque-client both provide a qstat binary... is there
RK anything done to get that resolved upstream? or is it a conflicts
RK and forget scenario?
This one, I think, should be easily resolvable with alternatives.
Actually I think all
ST == Steve Traylen steve.tray...@cern.ch writes:
ST Would be happy for an alternatives solution. I have yet another
ST /usr/bin/qstat for a POSIX interface to batch on the way at some
ST point.
Turns out that the other queuing systems (torque and gridengine) have
already renamed their qstat
RWMJ == Richard W M Jones rjo...@redhat.com writes:
RWMJ Newly installed Ubuntu 9.10, when you log in over ssh you may see:
RWMJ 34 packages can be updated. 10 updates are security updates.
What a terrible idea. My users, who are welcome to ssh into a number of
machines at my site, have no
JM == Jonathan MERCIER bioinfornat...@gmail.com writes:
JM Dear sir, I have open a bug:
JM https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=532248
JM But i have any answer! What can i do?
Somehow acquire patience? Work on debugging the problem yourself? You
haven't given much time at all for the
SD == Steve Dickson ste...@redhat.com writes:
SD On the server (Which is suggested): Add the following entry to the
SD /etc/exports file:
SD / *(ro,fsid=0)
SD Note: 'fsid=0' is explained in the exports(5) man pages.
Could someone comment on any potential security issues that exporting
the
For ages there's been this ugly set of pages at
http://fedoraproject.org/PackageReviewStatus/ used by folks who do
package reviews for Fedora to avoid having to stare at the bugzilla
query screen. Lately I've been trying to overhaul things a bit; I made
things generate from genshi templates
ES == Emmanuel Seyman emmanuel.sey...@club-internet.fr writes:
ES Note that there's only the option of selectively removing the
ES automatically found values:
ES
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Perl#Filtering_Requires:_and_Provides
Well, actually if you look at what's on that page, it
RF == Richard Fontana rfont...@redhat.com writes:
[Offensiveness of WTFPL text]
RF Agreed, this is unfortunate. :)
Might I suggest simply modifying the offensive language? I know license
proliferation is bad, but if the result is legally equivalent and serves
the necessary purpose then I
SSF == Stefan Schulze Frielinghaus ste...@seekline.net writes:
SSF If I interpret the naming guidelines right, then a period is not
SSF allowed in a package name.
Could you indicate where in the naming guidelines you see that a period
is not valid in a package name?
- J
--
fedora-devel-list
FJR == Jaroslav Reznik jrez...@redhat.com writes:
FJR * Phonon backend not as mature as Xine one
FJR - missing functionality
Perhaps you could supply more detail as to which functionality is
missing?
- J
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
JK == Jan Klepek jan.kle...@brandforge.sk writes:
JK Hi, I'm working on packaging rubygem-ditz which is licensed under
JK GPLv3 ( https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=525211 ). Ditz
JK require library rubygem-trollop which is under GPLv2 (
JK
I know that Callum has in the past had periods where he is very busy.
Given that he's asked for assistance before, and that no reasonable
maintainer wouldn't want help from experienced packagers when busy, I
went ahead and approved agoode and rdieter's requests for watchbugzilla,
watchcommits and
MAS == Michel Alexandre Salim michael.silva...@gmail.com writes:
MAS Who is this Piotr Drag and why is he suddenly Cc:ing himself on
MAS very old bug requests?
I assume you mean un-ccing himself. Do you believe he has violated
some rule by removing himself from the CC list of several bugs? I
OP == Orion Poplawski or...@cora.nwra.com writes:
OP Can anyone tell me what the purpose of an empty *.bs files in the
OP auto directory tree would be? Do we need to package them?
You shouldn't package them. There's a reason the specfle template
deletes them:
# Remove the next line from
AT == Axel Thimm axel.th...@atrpms.net writes:
AT I don't think apt traces whether a packages was a pulled in manually
AT or automatically, does it?
yum does keep track of many things in the yumdb and I think the reason
key is supposed to track this, but for me it seems reason is always
user.
SK == Stepan Kasal ska...@redhat.com writes:
SK Hello, I have noticed that some of the perl module packages do pack
SK their tests in the %doc subdirectory. Is that intentional?
One maintainer insists on doing it. I think it's pointless, but I gave
up arguing long ago.
- J
--
Fedora Extras
MAS == Michel Alexandre Salim michael.silva...@gmail.com writes:
MAS When a review is granted, the mail always says $REVIEWER has
MAS granted $REVIEWER's request for fedora-review. Shouldn't the
MAS second $REVIEWER be $PACKAGER ?
That's just a by-product of the way we abuse bugzilla's flags
JJ == Jerry James loganje...@gmail.com writes:
JJ Would someone who has editing rights to
JJ https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Emacs please do a global
JJ search and replace:
Could we have some explanation of why these changes are needed? Have
these directories changed location
Certainly the text not agreeing with the templates is something we need
to fix. I've changed four references of xemacs/site-packages to
xemacs/site-packages/lisp in two specfile templates. Please
double-check that everything is correct.
- J
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
JN == Jindrich Novy jn...@redhat.com writes:
JN These virtual provides, such as tex(tex), tex(latex) or tex(xetex)
JN were added at the beginning of the year 2008 so it works at least
JN for Fedora 9 and higher.
JN We should file bugs for these packages.
There are many, many more packages that
JLT == Jason L Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu writes:
JLT There are many, many more packages that require tetex-latex at
JLT build time. Notably every R package, most likely because of
JLT http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:R.
I have adjusted the guideline page to reference tex(latex), but I
SG == Steve Grubb sgr...@redhat.com writes:
SG It would have been in before feature freeze if sc-audit hadn't
SG gotten stuck in package review.
A couple of points here, since you seem to be blaming the review
process for the lateness of this package:
Submitting a new package request and
SG == Steve Grubb sgr...@redhat.com writes:
SG I was doing the package review and someone else took it from me.
You had it assigned to yourself with the fedora-review flag set?
Looking at https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_activity.cgi?id=514602, it
seems that it was assigned to you but the flag
JL == Jussi Lehtola jussileht...@fedoraproject.org writes:
JL (I'm not very sure, however, about the current policy of wanting
JL sponsors to review first packages. IMHO anyone should be able to
JL review them, just as long as a sponsor goes through them and some
JL inofficial reviews by the
JL == Jussi Lehtola jussileht...@fedoraproject.org writes:
JL That's what I think, too, but
JL http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Join#Get_Sponsored
JL thinks otherwise:
Actually it just says what I said more succinctly. An informal review
can be done by anyone. The actual full
AT == Axel Thimm axel.th...@atrpms.net writes:
AT Is there an upgrade-rpm-for-F11 available?
In updates-testing.
- J
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
JK == Jesse Keating jkeat...@redhat.com writes:
JK Hrm, so I wonder about this. Does exim rely on the group ownership
JK at all for anything? Would it make sense to have a general
JK 'service' or 'nobody' group that these things could be tossed in if
JK the group isn't to be used, to avoid
JLT == Jason L Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu writes:
JLT So useradd must have changed its behavior quite recently.
It could be shadow-4.1.4.1-sysacc.patch, I guess, but that was built in
rawhide on the 16th of this month and I've done plenty of builds since
then.
- J
--
fedora-devel-list
Today I tried to do some rawhide builds in my usual mock setup (running
on updated x86_64 F11), but somehow I can't even init a chroot due to:
Executing command: ['/usr/sbin/groupadd', '-g', '498', 'mockbuild']
Child returncode was: 4
GID 498 is already occupied by exim, which gets pulled in
JK == Jesse Keating jkeat...@j2solutions.net writes:
JK Mock is trying to add a user / group that matches the user / group
JK calling it. Is the user calling it of gid 498?
That's the GID of the mock group on the host. It's not my primary GID,
but I guess that doesn't matter. It would
TM == Till Maas opensou...@till.name writes:
TM Please explain why.
The details are in the review ticket; I neglected to check where my
message was going before I sent it. But basically, it's not permissible
to say your package is a clone of X where X is a trademark.
- J
--
RS == Rahul Sundaram sunda...@fedoraproject.org writes:
RS Hi, http://aria2.sf.net was marked as GPLv2 so far. I recently
RS took over the package and noticed that the license is actually
RS GPLv2+ with an exception for OpenSSL. That doesn't seem to be
RS specifically covered under the licensing
YK == Yanko Kaneti yan...@declera.com writes:
YK Seriously wtf!?
Can't answer that.
YK And where is the frikken package review for it?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=509990
Unfortunately neither the reviewer nor the packager updated the ticket
title with the changed name of the
BP == Björn Persson bj...@rombobjörn.se writes:
BP So my question is: If there are no plans to build a package on any
BP distribution release where a BuildRoot tag is needed, and it is
BP known that the package won't build cleanly on such a release, is a
BP BuildRoot tag still required for the
d == drago01 drag...@gmail.com writes:
d Afaik those are blocking on xz review request rel-eng to coordinate
d a mass rebuild
The xz review had stalled; notting asked me to step in but somehow it
slipped my mind for a day. I just went ahead and took it over; there
are a couple of things to
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 submitting it for a rebuild.
I think the point is that the package owner should have deleted it
from devel so that there would be nothing for rel-eng to
TM == Till Maas opensou...@till.name writes:
TM Imho if the devel branch is a problem, then it should not be
TM created when the package is imported to CVS, if it is a epel-only
TM package.
The devel branch is mandatory, but that doesn't mean that the package
owner has to import anything there
NDN == Nathanael D Noblet nathan...@gnat.ca writes:
NDN I'm wondering if it is possible to be a co-maintainer with
NDN someone willing?
In general, all you need is a sponsor. The usual route to that is via
the submission of new packages, but it's not the only way. I happen
to be a sponsor, so
DS == Dodji Seketeli do...@redhat.com writes:
DS Interesting. I thought people were obliged to submit _new_
DS packages to request sponsorship,
Any user can request sponsorship without doing anything. That doesn't
mean they're going to get it, of course. It is the sponsor's
responsibility to
MC == Matej Cepl mc...@redhat.com writes:
MC So, how should I propose to FESCO exclusion of DiveIntoPython
MC (BTW, wonderful book), Jules Verne and anything else we find?
Open a ticket on their trac (https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/).
The issue here is that the guidelines explicitly permit
MC == Matej Cepl mc...@redhat.com writes:
MC Well, I always understood, that documentation which is part of
MC normal package is OK, but source package which contains nothing
MC else than documentation isn't.
If that was the case, then I see 17 -docs packages that build
completely separately
JL == Jussi Lehtola jussileht...@fedoraproject.org writes:
JL On 06/02/2009 07:27 AM, Jindrich Novy wrote:
New version texlive-2008 (to be in f12): one single texlive package
generating 3944 subpackages / 1065 MiB
JL Oh. My. God.
Please read the whole thread; that was the initial proposal,
NM == Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mail...@laposte.net writes:
NM I didn't see this before but I can only agree with the replies:
NM this is an insane plan. Nobody is ever going to review properly a
NM 2.7 MiB spec file, updating will be hell, etc.
Isn't it nice, then that the final plan is
MB == Mathieu Bridon (bochecha) boche...@fedoraproject.org writes:
MB After each item in the review guidelines, add a [more] link that
MB points to the relevant section in the packaging guidelines ?
Do you realize that the document already has footnotes doing exactly
that?
- J
--
J == Jason L Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu writes:
J The Packaging Committee will meet Tuesday, 2009-05-26 at 17:00UTC
J in the #fedora-meeting channel on chat.freenode.net.
Due to lack of quorum, this meeting is postponed to Tuesday,
2009-06-02. I will send an updated agenda as the meeting
TC == Tom \spot\ Callaway tcall...@redhat.com writes:
TC Is anyone opposed to that?
It's hard to oppose anything that frees us from carrying around all of
this useless crap in every specfile. If we ever want our packaging to
be considered sane, we have to make progress towards getting rid of
The Packaging Committee will meet Tuesday, 2009-05-26 at 17:00UTC in
the #fedora-meeting channel on chat.freenode.net.
FPC works from the agenda at
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/GuidelinesTodo; there's just
one item currently on the agenda:
Phase out Buildroot -
TC == Tom \spot\ Callaway tcall...@redhat.com writes:
TC pike: Not in Fedora.
FYI, https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=459579
If there's an issue, could you add a comment there?
- J
___
Fedora-legal-list mailing list
JB == Josh Boyer jwbo...@gmail.com writes:
JB It would seem no. It has a very confusing 'not sold for profit'
JB item.
Note that Debian believes this is sufficiently free, because they have
no requirement that software be redistributable for profit on its own,
only as part of their
KM == Kyle McMartin k...@infradead.org writes:
KM Uh, who are you again?
Oliver Falk, works on the Alpha port if I'm not mistaken.
- J
___
Fedora-kernel-list mailing list
Fedora-kernel-list@redhat.com
FL == Farkas Levente lfar...@lfarkas.org writes:
FL hi, i'd like to know that lwjgl is ok for fedora:
FL http://www.lwjgl.org/license.php thanks in advance. yours.
That's just 3-clause BSD, isn't it?
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/BSD#New_BSD_.28no_advertising.2C_3_clause.29
It's
DM == Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski domi...@greysector.net writes:
DM Am I mistaken? Is this licence acceptable for Fedora?
The info at
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/FAQ#What_about_the_RSA_license_on_their_MD5_implementation.3F_Isn.27t_that_GPL-incompatible.3F
seems to be on-point
MT == Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp writes:
MT I guess I can basic reviews also required for other packages,
MT however for security matters I really applicate any help from who
MT knows how to deal with securitly issues.
Well, my request didn't result in any assistance, so I'm not
DJ == Dave Jones da...@redhat.com writes:
DJ The last time we tried this, it blew up a lot due to broken
DJ BIOSes.
Yes, this used to kill a bunch of my machines dead. It may be better
now; I'm quite willing to boot test kernels if someone wants to point
me at one.
- J
OF == Oliver Falk oli...@linux-kernel.at writes:
OF And regarding your point: '... different arches build noarch
OF subpackage with different contents'. Well, then it's definitly not
OF *noarch*, is't it? :-)
It is quite possible for the contents to differ by, say, date, or by
timestamps being
MB == Mike Bonnet mi...@redhat.com writes:
MB There is some set of post-build checks we may want to run on these
MB noarch subpackages to ensure they are in fact noarch, and that
MB their content is sane.
I think it would be sufficient to collect all of the noarch packages
generated from the
This package brings up a couple of other issues.
Firstly, it's an emulator, but it doesn't seem to need any original
ROMs to run because they're written their own work-alikes. I'm
assuming this is OK, but I guess it's worth asking.
Secondly, those work-alike ROMs are included in pre-assembled
KF == Kevin Fenzi [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
KF I'm no expert, but I could take a look I suppose.
Another pair of eyes won't hurt, of course, but honestly I don't know
what's involved in an actual secuity review.
KF How about we make a F_SECURITY_REVIEW tracker bug, and any review
KF that needs
Someone asked on IRC today how someone who is not a Fedora user could
know if a particular piece of software is packaged for Fedora. I
pointed them to pkgdb (https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/) but
then went to the web site to try to understand why they couldn't
figure that out for
JK == Jesse Keating [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
JK I do believe that sets it to whatever owner permissions the file
JK has on the filesystem, root owner, root group, whatever group
JK permissions it has on the filesystem or something close to that
JK effect.
Well, yes, but obviously
I do a large number of local mock builds as a part of the package
reviews that I do, and one problem I consistently run into is
executables and .so files coming out with mode 775, but a scratch
build in Fedora's koji instance showing the expected 755 permissions.
I thought it might be some local
DM == Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
DM Hi. SciLab has changed its licence to CeCILLv2[1], which claims to
DM be GPLv2+ compatible. I tried reading it and it gave me a
DM headache. It seems to contain a few dubious passages[2]. Could RH
DM Legal have a look at it and
TC == Tom \spot\ Callaway Tom writes:
TC Given that the author wrote the debian/copyright file, we can
TC take that as his intent.
Would it be possible to add a bit to the Licensing page or FAQ about
determining intent in situations like this? Or it would simply be
better to ask in each case?
Yes, I have seen many of these on my and other updates. It's quite
annoying to me that someone would try to do that. I mean, if you
really want an update and you've tested it, contact the maintainer and
make a request. But creating fake accounts just to bump karma is only
going to force people
This may be a FAQ, but searching didn't turn it up. If it's not
already documented, perhaps we could get it into the FAQ page because
this question comes up often enough when doing package reviews.
The problem is code which has no license information at all.
Sometimes there are copyright
RF == Richard Fontana [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
RF Disclaimer: IAARHL, IANYL, TINLA
No problem. However, please forgive this response for I am new to
this list and don't know who everyone is. I simply do not know if
should take your comments as rendered opinion for the purposes of
acceptance
BN == Bill Nottingham [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
BN So, the question would be... is this worth it? Do we want to keep
BN supporting this?
I can't see how it's all that useful. And given that this is the kind
of weirdness that's going to be difficult to emulate using some other
version control
GS == Gabor Szabo [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
GS So if you do find a module with problematic licenses it would be
GS great if you could check if CPANTS http://cpants.perl.org/ has
GS also caught that issue.
This is good news; Perl modules have often been a source of licensing
trouble due to
GS == Gabor Szabo [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
GS What others would you include in that list?
The current set of approved licenses should be at
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing (which isn't responding for me
at the moment, so I can't cut'n'paste for you).
- J
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
DC == Dave Cross [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
DC I've always had a sneaking suspicion that what I've got are good
DC enough for me, but not for Fedora's repositories.
Well, modern cpanspec generates pretty good specs. Generally what you
need to do is verify the license (which unfortunately seems
SK == Stepan Kasal [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
SK But I'm not going to make a request now, as I do not want to
SK interfere with Jason's activity.
I was done with what I was doing about ten minutes after I sent my
message, which is over six days ago. I only did Alex's packages.
- J
--
Fedora
PJ == Peter Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
PJ That doesn't guarantee the right thing -- it's inverted. It makes
PJ it so that before kernel-devel's %post runs, kernel must be
PJ installed. What Matt needs is a guarantee that kernel-devel is
PJ installed (if it will be installed at all) before
CW == Clark Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
CW [...] It looks like it's hanging while running the test
CW t/06error.t:
Oh, crap; I never considered the possibility that it's actually made
it that far into the package build. Unfortunately the mock output
makes it look like it hasn't actually
I'm not sure what to make of this so I haven't yet filed a bug. But I
noticed that one of spot's jobs was taking way longer than it should:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=31678
and so I grabbed the srpm and tried to build it on my local builder.
It hung at the same place
KF == Kevin Fenzi [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
7: Password Protect Single User Mode (Runlevel 1)
KF Might be worth doing.
That's what the grub password is for.
- J
--
Fedora-security-list mailing list
Fedora-security-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-security-list
DJ == Dave Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
DJ I think we ended up settling on putting them on
DJ people.fedoraproject.org. Given the 150MB quota, this probably
DJ means...
Actually all it means is that you need to ask for more space.
- J
___
LK == Lubomir Kundrak [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
LK Or are we going to handle that in another way? SFM?
If the problem is bodhi closing bugs that may need to remain open to
track the issue in different branches, wouldn't it be far simpler for
bodhi to grow the option to just not close referenced
RN == Robin Norwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
RN So you may want to update the license field as you go (Not
RN blindly, of course...there are probably exceptions).
I think there may be a few modules out there which are Artistic
_only_, which it seems makes them unacceptable for Fedora. I
PH == Paul Howarth [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
PH rpmlint (at least up to rpmlint-0.80-2) still complains about
PH this:
Yes, Ville has indicated that he's fixing this.
- J
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
Fedora-perl-devel-list mailing list
IB == Ian Burrell [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
IB Why would Artistic license be considered unacceptable for Fedora?
It's in the Bad Licenses list at the bottom of
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing
IB Also, the Artistic 2.0 license is different.
Yes, as recognized on the above page.
IB It
CG == Chris Grau [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
CG Which means they'd be installed under
CG /usr/share/doc/%{name}-%{version}, right?
No, it means they'd be marked as %doc and therefore wouldn't be
installed with an --excludedocs install.
- J
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
JU == Jonathan Underwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
JU So, I was wondering what would be useful information to help debug
JU this, beyond it doesn't work very well.
Well, the latest F8 kernels have a newer version of the iwlwifi
drivers; some folks have reported that it works much better for
RN == Robin Norwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
RN Is there a general policy for this sort of situation, and if not,
RN should there be?
I'm not sure we could make one. When upstream forks (or pseudo-forks
as seems to have happened here), we're going to have to figure out
what to do on a
RC == Ralf Corsepius [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
RC You don't want to know about the bugs and deficits your packages
RC suffer from?
Well, to play devil's advocate, if we're to consider lack of
documentation coverage a bug and block inclusion of packages due to
those bugs, then we shouldn't even
CW == Chris Weyl [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
CW A while ago and on a different list, tibbs proposed adding one
CW last bit to the buildcycle:
Actually I think it was this list.
Honestly I don't think this needs to be in mock, but mock really needs
to continue to give me the means to do that kind
CW == Clark Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
CW Well dang, now you're going to make me work for it :).
Well, no big deal; I'm happy with what I have now, although I really
hope that I'll be able to continue to make it work somehow after
mockhelper goes away.
I think some type of
MEB == Michael E Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
MEB I just caught up on the rpmlint discussion, and have a few
MEB concerns.
MEB Security of installing just-built RPM
Can't be any worse than actually building the package, can it?
MEB Can rpmlint just be done outside of mock (using mock
CW == Clark Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
CW Just so you know, I have a version of mock that takes a --rpmlint
CW command line option which will add rpmlint to the chroot
CW transaction set, install it in the chroot and then run rpmlint on
CW the generated SRPM and RPMs, putting the output
TK == Toshio Kuratomi [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
TK I don't know what Andras had in mind but one potential problem is
TK that BuildRequires might not pull in all of a package's Requires.
TK Noarch packages would be the primary place you'll see this.
Obviously there's a working yum and a full set
JLT == Jason L Tibbitts, Jason writes:
JLT Because I was told that is the only way rpmlint can run certain
JLT checks.
For an example of a check that only works if you actually install the
package, see:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=198835#c6
- J
--
JK == Jesse Keating [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
JK mock chroot will allow you to run a comand in the chroot.
Oh, awesome. Honestly, very many thanks. Might I be so bold as to
suggest something like the following patch?
Index: mock.py
SP == Steven Pritchard [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
SP I just tried this with OpenFrame (something I manually built all
SP the dependencies for a while back), and it looks like I'm down to
SP 5 required modules that aren't in Extras already.
Looks like I'll have more Perl modules to review.
- J
1 - 100 of 101 matches
Mail list logo
