On Tue, 5 Jan 2010, Panu Matilainen wrote:
For the impatient:
Starting with today's rawhide, the these kind of constructs in specs no
longer work:
%{?!foo: %define foo bar}
For the generally desired effect, the above simply becomes:
%{?!foo: %global foo bar}
This is already
On Thu, 7 Jan 2010, Jesse Keating wrote:
As I proceed to port our make system over into fedpkg, I've ran across a
couple targets that are giving me pause.
Is anybody out there making use of the following targets?
unused-patches
I use this fairly often, typically to clean up leftovers after
For the impatient:
Starting with today's rawhide, the these kind of constructs in specs
no longer work:
%{?!foo: %define foo bar}
For the generally desired effect, the above simply becomes:
%{?!foo: %global foo bar}
This is already recommended by the Fedora guidelines, but
On Tue, 5 Jan 2010, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Tue, Jan 05, 2010 at 06:34:12PM +0200, Panu Matilainen wrote:
For the impatient:
Starting with today's rawhide, the these kind of constructs in specs
no longer work:
%{?!foo: %define foo bar}
For the generally desired effect, the above
On Wed, 16 Dec 2009, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
Since RPM 4.8 (now in Rawhide / Fedora 13), the external dependency
generator that we used to ship with OCaml has now gone upstream into
RPM. This is a Good Thing, thanks to the RPM maintainers for adding
this.
If you own an OCaml library
On Thu, 10 Dec 2009, Seth Vidal wrote:
On Thu, 10 Dec 2009, Jesse Keating wrote:
On Thu, 2009-12-10 at 10:56 +0200, Panu Matilainen wrote:
Hmm, looking at the traceback at the end of
http://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org/mash/rawhide-20091209/logs/mash.log it's
not at all clear whether
Now that FESCo has approved new major RPM version for F-13 and the public
beta is officially out... it's going to hit rawhide in a few hours.
Couple of practical issues:
- Soname bump is involved, so anything directly linking to librpm
needs to be rebuilt. This includes deltarpm, gdb,
Grepping through spec files from CVS devel/ shows there are a handful of
package still using %{PACKAGE_VERSION} and %{PACKAGE_RELEASE} macros.
These were considered backwards compatibility stuff in 1998 (yes, eleven
years ago) already, please change them to use the %{version} and
%{release}
It's that time of year again... we're planning on getting a brand new RPM
version into Fedora 13. While the feature submission is being processed
and public beta being prepared, we'd like to get some extra testing of the
new RPM to catch out any remaining wrinkles our own testing hasn't
On Fri, 27 Nov 2009, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 11:11:37AM -0500, Matthew Miller wrote:
So this is a call for brave testers who eat rawhide for breakfast, to try
out pre-release snapshot(s) of the oncoming RPM release. This is not
I'm in. :)
file
On Fri, 6 Nov 2009, Benny Amorsen wrote:
We have a lot of virtualized (OpenVZ) Fedora servers. Until now I have
avoided running cron inside each server; log rotation is done from the
host.
This has worked rather well until lately. Unfortunately rpm has acquired
a dependency on crontabs,
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009, Ralf Ertzinger wrote:
Hi.
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 10:20:17 +0200, Tomas Mraz wrote:
What would this be good for?
To expand on the motivation for this:
The idea is to have a list of known good file hashes to test your local
files against, if you have reason not to trust
On Sat, 10 Oct 2009, Christoph Wickert wrote:
Am Freitag, den 09.10.2009, 18:56 -0400 schrieb Neal Becker:
Just received:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=528237
yum install libotf-devel.i586 libotf-devel.x86_64
yields:
Transaction Check Error:
file /usr/bin/libotf-config from
On Tue, 6 Oct 2009, Jon Masters wrote:
On Tue, 2009-10-06 at 10:43 -0700, Jesse Keating wrote:
So I guess the real question is do we want our packages built in koji to
assume a bug URL of fedora, even when used in downstream projects?
I think that's a giant assumption - if the maintainer
On Thu, 8 Oct 2009, Jesse Keating wrote:
On Thu, 2009-10-08 at 11:29 +0300, Panu Matilainen wrote:
With that, the %{name} part is expanded at build time to effectively the
source rpm name, and the rest is up to query-time expansion. The extension
could return empty if the macro expansion fails
A while ago there was a request to add a bug reporting URL to packages:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=512774
This was added to Fedora's rpm recently, what's still missing is the
default contents of the %{bugurl} macro in redhat-rpm-config.
Opinions wanted:
a) just make it
On Tue, 6 Oct 2009, Juha Tuomala wrote:
On Tuesday 06 October 2009 15:48:32 Panu Matilainen wrote:
This was added to Fedora's rpm recently, what's still missing is the
default contents of the %{bugurl} macro in redhat-rpm-config.
Opinions wanted:
a) just make it https://bugzilla.redhat.com
b
On Tue, 6 Oct 2009, Jesse Keating wrote:
On Tue, 2009-10-06 at 17:37 +0300, Panu Matilainen wrote:
Something like that is quite easily doable by adding a RPMTAG_BUGURL tag
extension which grabs its value from macro configuration if set, otherwise
use the contents from the package.
It is out
On Thu, 1 Oct 2009, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 04:33:24PM -0600, Orion Poplawski wrote:
I package plplot which ships bindings for oodles of languages, among
them perl and ocaml. The ocaml packaging guidelines suggest:
%global _use_internal_dependency_generator 0
On Mon, 14 Sep 2009, Mike McLean wrote:
On 09/14/2009 11:50 AM, Alan Franzoni (mailing) wrote:
It seems the rpmdb of the chroot has been created with an rpm
employing a different format ( I can assume it's the 'host' system rpm
), hence leading to a format mismatch which prevents from using
On Thu, 3 Sep 2009, Philip Prindeville wrote:
No joy:
[r...@builder SRPMS]# rm -rf /var/lib/mock/fedora-10-x86_64/root
[r...@builder SRPMS]# mock -r fedora-10-x86_64 --init --rebuild
perl-Net-Patricia-1.15_01-1.fc9.src.rpm
Don't run mock as root. That'll avoid the incompatible db
On Thu, 9 Jul 2009, Alan Dunn wrote:
I want to conditionally apply a patch in a spec file based upon the
version of a package. (There's an emacs package that needs a patch to
work with the latest version of xemacs, but this patch shouldn't be
applied for previous versions of xemacs.) I know
On Fri, 26 Jun 2009, Chris Weyl wrote:
On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 11:48 AM, Chris Weyl cw...@alumni.drew.edu wrote:
On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 9:29 AM, Jussi Lehtola
jussileht...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Fri, 2009-06-26 at 18:07 +0200, Iain Arnell wrote:
okay, not actually broken,
On Tue, 23 Jun 2009, Martin Langhoff wrote:
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 9:10 PM, Mathieu Bridon
(bochecha)boche...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
RPM has seen a lot of improvements in speed and memory consumption
Are there any improvements on recovery of unexpectedly failed
transactions, such as OOM,
On Fri, 26 Jun 2009, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 06:30:01 -0400, Stephen wrote:
I think he's just talking about clearing up unnecessary duplication
(like with his php-pear example) that confuses the yum dependency checker.
Hmmm? Tom's announcement doesn't mention any such
On Tue, 9 Jun 2009, Matthias Clasen wrote:
On Tue, 2009-06-09 at 14:58 +0200, Christoph Wickert wrote:
# for /usr/share/gnome/autostart
Requires: gnome-session
Great! This adds
gnome-session: 1.8 MB
control-center: 7.1 MB
GConf2: 5,5 MB
gnome-keyring: 2,3 MB
gnome-vfs2: 3.1 MB
You added
On Wed, 10 Jun 2009, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
Le Mer 10 juin 2009 10:59, Florian Festi a écrit :
Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
1. something auto-triggered transparently (didn't we learn anything
from
existing package triggers?).
I think you make the wrong comparison here (although I admit that
On Wed, 10 Jun 2009, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
Le Mer 10 juin 2009 13:21, Panu Matilainen a écrit :
File triggers are certainly not the holy grail of packaging, they're
only
applicaple to a pretty limited set of situations, from the top of my
head:
1) Caches updaters which you only want
On Wed, 10 Jun 2009, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
Le Mer 10 juin 2009 15:28, Matthias Clasen a écrit :
I think we want something slighly less than this; rpm should track the
fact that a directory was created just because some files needed to be
put there, and it should be able to clean up if the
On Fri, 5 Jun 2009, Ray Strode wrote:
Hi,
On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 2:05 PM, Adam Williamsonawill...@redhat.com wrote:
On Fri, 2009-06-05 at 13:50 -0400, Ray Strode 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
On Tue, 26 May 2009, Tom \spot\ Callaway wrote:
On 05/26/2009 04:10 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
I vote for also removing the %clean section.
So, looking at this objectively, here are the technical problems:
* We're defining a BuildRoot in the spec, but that definition is no
longer used
On Mon, 25 May 2009, Mamoru Tasaka wrote:
Michael Schwendt wrote, at 05/25/2009 05:35 PM +9:00:
Are they related to
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/AutoFontsAndMimeInstaller
?
Yes.
audacity = 1.3.7-0.6.beta.fc11
Build Time 2009-03-02 16:40:30 GMT
mimehandler(application/ogg)
On Tue, 26 May 2009, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
On 05/26/2009 01:40 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 11:35:23AM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
On 05/26/2009 09:50 AM, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
The Packaging Committee will meet Tuesday, 2009-05-26 at 17:00UTC in
the
On Tue, 24 Feb 2009, Gerhard Magnus wrote:
In the process of getting Fedora 10 up and running on a x86_64 machine
I've totally messed up yum and am getting this error:
rpmdb: PANIC: fatal region error detected; run recovery
How do I run recovery
Thanks for the help! --Jerry
Hmm, seeing that
On Sat, 31 Jan 2009, Ambrogio wrote:
Hi all,
I use yum list in a script to have everytime I need a list of package
available.
Some packages, that have long names, are displayed in 2 rows, so scripts
are more hard to be coded.
There is an option to have a more simple list of packages, less
On Sat, 24 Jan 2009, Patrick Dupre wrote:
On Fri, 23 Jan 2009, Panu Matilainen wrote:
On Thu, 22 Jan 2009, Patrick Dupre wrote:
Hello,
For a reason that I ignore my database is totallt mess up.
rpm --rebuilddb only rebuild iy partially.
The packages are installed, but rpm --rebuilddb does
:
On Thu, 22 Jan 2009, Craig White wrote:
On Fri, 2009-01-23 at 01:00 +, Patrick Dupre wrote:
On Thu, 22 Jan 2009, Panu Matilainen wrote:
On Wed, 21 Jan 2009, Patrick Dupre wrote:
Hello,
For a reason that I ignore my database is totallt mess up.
rpm --rebuilddb only rebuild iy partially
On Thu, 22 Jan 2009, Craig White wrote:
On Fri, 2009-01-23 at 01:00 +, Patrick Dupre wrote:
On Thu, 22 Jan 2009, Panu Matilainen wrote:
On Wed, 21 Jan 2009, Patrick Dupre wrote:
Hello,
For a reason that I ignore my database is totallt mess up.
rpm --rebuilddb only rebuild iy partially
On Fri, 23 Jan 2009, Craig White wrote:
On Fri, 2009-01-23 at 19:49 +0200, Panu Matilainen wrote:
http://www.rpm.org/wiki/Docs/RpmRecovery
OK, but /usr/lib/rpm/rpmdb_sta is not part of rpm for fedora !
Regards
indeed - they seem to have removed the db4 utilities from rpmdb
Rpm in F10
On Thu, 22 Jan 2009, Patrick Dupre wrote:
Hello,
For a reason that I ignore my database is totallt mess up.
rpm --rebuilddb only rebuild iy partially.
The packages are installed, but rpm --rebuilddb does not see them.
How can I recover them without resintalling them manually ?
Find the
On Wed, 21 Jan 2009, Patrick Dupre wrote:
Hello,
For a reason that I ignore my database is totallt mess up.
rpm --rebuilddb only rebuild iy partially.
The packages are installed, but rpm --rebuilddb does not see them.
How can I recover them without resintalling them manually ?
Find the
On Sat, 20 Dec 2008, David Timms wrote:
Geoffrey Leach wrote:
RPM version 4.6.0-rc1
# rpm -q rpm
rpmdb: Thread/process 20260/3086157584 failed: Thread died in Berkeley DB
library
... hange here
Any suggestions? --rebuilddb gets the same reply
- backup the /var/lib/rpm/
- reboot with a
On Sat, 13 Dec 2008, John Horne wrote:
[Apologies for cross-posting from the opensuse list]
Hello,
I was wondering if someone could tell me why there is a difference in
the reported inode number of a file from the 'ls' command, and from the
'rpm' command. For example, using the /usr/bin/wget
On Fri, 28 Nov 2008, Dave Cross wrote:
2008/11/27 Sam Varshavchik [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
In F10, I cannot compile neither Perl-RPM nor Perl-RPM2.
Am I boned?
Looks like the Fedora Perl package maintainers might have reached the
same conclusion. RPM2 was included in Fedora 9, but appears to have
44 matches
Mail list logo
