On Sun, 2009-07-19 at 10:57 +0100, Sergio Monteiro Basto wrote:
That's the log I can get for wormux.
So you exclude wormux but not wormux-data?
yes, to just exclude wormux, I think just appears wormux in duplicates
and also is enough to solve the duplicated.
Hi, updating the
On Thu, 30 Jul 2009 18:33:38 -0700, Kyle wrote:
I don't currently intend to push Pylons 0.9.7 to F-10, unless someone makes
an argument otherwise. The upgrade from 0.9.6.2 is not a clean one and
would possibly break existing user applications.
Le jeudi 30 juillet 2009 à 16:34 -0400, Matthias Clasen a écrit :
On Thu, 2009-07-30 at 21:25 +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 01:12:25PM +0200, nicolas.mail...@laposte.net wrote:
but X / GNOME is still severely broken.
GNOME has been broken in rawhide for a
On Thu, 30 Jul 2009 22:08:49 +0100, Mat wrote:
Updating my F11 box today and found this in the console:
Cleanup: 32:bind-libs-9.6.1-3.fc11.x86_64
27/28
/sbin/ldconfig: relative path `1' used to build cache
Non-fatal POSTUN scriptlet
On 31/07/09 00:43, Doug Epling wrote:
--snip--
It is apparent from reading all these great howdy-dos to my post, that
there is a great difference of opinion on exactly what Fedora is.
#1 That's it in a nutshell, Fedora is different things to different people.
As I said, it will be
Found: Merge review 2007
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226132
Bug: 2009
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=507026
--
Regards, Frank
jabber | msn | skype: frankly3d
http://www.frankly3d.com
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
Om 31.07.2009 01:27 Doug Epling wrote:
Also: I _want_ to use Fedora as a desktop. And I also _want_ to use it
as a server. At the Moment I see no problem in that. Why can't there be
both in your opinion?
Well, excuse me for my old fashioned notion that a server must run for
days, weeks,
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 1:40 AM, Jesse Keatingjkeat...@redhat.com wrote:
I've now generated the first of the mass rebuild status pages.
http://jkeating.fedorapeople.org/needed-f12-rebuilds.html
http://jkeating.fedorapeople.org/failed-f12-rebuilds.html
I will try to keep these updated
On Fri, 2009-07-31 at 10:16 +0200, drago01 wrote:
'/builddir/build/BUILDROOT/dbus-c++-0.5.0-0.9.20090203git13281b3.fc12.x86_64/usr/include/dbus-c++-1/dbus-c++/'
/usr/bin/install: will not overwrite just-created
- Conrad Meyer ceme...@u.washington.edu wrote:
On Thursday 30 July 2009 08:49:12 am Jan Chadima wrote:
Hi
I've just solve the problem with the openssh-blacklist package.
Now the packae is only the 16 kbytes. It contains the downloader.
The data
are downloaded from the server on
On 31/07/09 09:37, Jan Chadima wrote:
- Conrad Meyerceme...@u.washington.edu wrote:
--snip--
Maybe I do not understand your question. Now the srpm and noarch.rpm also
20kB.
The build is normal koji build. User (or admin) run the program and then
program synchronize the local
- Frank Murphy frankl...@gmail.com wrote:
On 31/07/09 09:37, Jan Chadima wrote:
- Conrad Meyerceme...@u.washington.edu wrote:
--snip--
Maybe I do not understand your question. Now the srpm and noarch.rpm
also 20kB.
The build is normal koji build. User (or admin) run the
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 10:35 AM, Caolán McNamaracaol...@redhat.com wrote:
On Fri, 2009-07-31 at 10:16 +0200, drago01 wrote:
'/builddir/build/BUILDROOT/dbus-c++-0.5.0-0.9.20090203git13281b3.fc12.x86_64/usr/include/dbus-c++-1/dbus-c++/'
/usr/bin/install: will not overwrite just-created
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 11:00:48PM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Thu, 30.07.09 21:25, Richard W.M. Jones (rjo...@redhat.com) wrote:
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 01:12:25PM +0200, nicolas.mail...@laposte.net wrote:
but X / GNOME is still severely broken.
GNOME has been broken in
2009/7/28 Lennart Poettering mzerq...@0pointer.de:
snip
I'd like to ask everyone to test this new volume logic. If you don't
raise your voice now that some output port is not properly detected or
audio is too faint then later on you won't have any right to complain.
I think you do what you
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 10:50:22AM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
On 07/31/2009 10:42 AM, James Antill wrote:
*sigh*, if you want to do some benchmarking of different package
managers available in Fedora (zypp makes the 4th, if apt is working
again) then feel free to actually do _a
On 07/31/2009 06:29 PM, Paul W. Frields wrote:
James has written about these before:
http://illiterat.livejournal.com/5043.html
http://illiterat.livejournal.com/5218.html
Yes, I have read through them before but doesn't quite answer the
question on why comparing two commands that do the
On 07/27/2009 01:01 PM, Michael Schroeder wrote:
I'm currently
trying to make it less SUSE specific like adding support for package
coloring
Feel free to join #rpm.org @ freenode or the rpm-maint list if you have
questions about file/package coloring. There are quite some tricky
problems
On Jul 31, 2009, at 8:04 AM, Richard Hughes wrote:
2009/7/30 Nathanael D. Noblet nathan...@gnat.ca:
So I recently updated F11 and was told I needed to log off for the
changes
to take effect. When I click the yield type sign and select log
off, I get
the dialog for shutdown, restart,
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 06:42:44PM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
If others are doing it wrong, then there *is* a clear and direct way to
demonstrate performance. Yum developers can do the performance
benchmarking between different dep resolves (yum, apt-rpm, smart and now
solv) and publish it
Jussi Lehtola on 07/31/2009 10:06 AM wrote:
so there is a 50x speed difference in favor of solv.
F13 feature?
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
On 07/31/2009 05:06 PM, Jussi Lehtola wrote:
so there is a 50x speed difference in favor of solv.
More interesting than the difference in time would be the difference (if
any) in the result...
Florian
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
On Fri, 2009-07-31 at 18:06 +0300, Jussi Lehtola wrote:
On Fri, 2009-07-31 at 17:26 +0300, Jussi Lehtola wrote:
To test things I've written a small application called solv that
works like a very tiny package manager. It's available via:
On Fri, 31 Jul 2009, Miroslav Lichvar wrote:
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 06:42:44PM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
If others are doing it wrong, then there *is* a clear and direct way to
demonstrate performance. Yum developers can do the performance
benchmarking between different dep resolves
On Friday 31 July 2009 04:42:12 am Frank Murphy wrote:
I think what is meant, it that the app is useless, without either
web\media input. Which the user should not have to do to take full
advantage of it.
I think this is a bit like virus definitions. 800Mb is excessive to ship in a
package. I
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 11:14:56AM -0400, Seth Vidal wrote:
On Fri, 31 Jul 2009, Miroslav Lichvar wrote:
If I'm not mistaken yum is developed to work only with Fedora
repositories which are conflict free, while the other depsolvers try
to handle more general repositories with conflicts. This
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
2009/7/31 Nathanael Noblet nathan...@gnat.ca:
But by 'log out' it really means reboot doesn't it?
Not really. If you're running an old version of gimp, you can restart
the process by logging out and logging back in, you don't have to
reboot. PackageKit splits these up into about 5 categories,
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
Richard Hughes on 07/31/2009 10:43 AM wrote:
Not really. If you're running an old version of gimp, you can restart
[snip]
Fedora 10 and 11 support only 2,3
Unfortunately there's a bug somewhere then. I've been meaning to file
another bug report on this. The PackageKit applet tooltip will
On Fri, 2009-07-31 at 10:41 -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
I don't think it's bad for exim to groupadd 93 first, but honestly I
don't know what happens to existing installations that may have a
different GID set up and I don't want to break anything. I guess such
systems would be running
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 09:12:23AM -0700, Jesse Keating wrote:
On Fri, 2009-07-31 at 17:41 +0200, Miroslav Lichvar wrote:
Right, I meant conflicts between latest versions of packages in
all repositories.
We have that too, for the packages that explicitly mark themselves as
conflicting.
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 3:43 PM, Richard Hugheshughsi...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/7/31 Nathanael Noblet nathan...@gnat.ca:
But by 'log out' it really means reboot doesn't it?
Not really. If you're running an old version of gimp, you can restart
the process by logging out and logging back in, you
On Fri, 2009-07-31 at 09:42 +0100, Frank Murphy wrote:
I think what is meant, it that the app is useless, without either
web\media input. Which the user should not have to do to take full
advantage of it.
We ship rather a lot of applications which are fairly useless without an
internet
Jason L Tibbitts III wrote, at 08/01/2009 12:46 AM +9:00:
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
On Fri, 2009-07-31 at 18:24 +0200, Miroslav Lichvar wrote:
Ok, I thought we have a policy that forbids it. So there is actually a
good reason why it should be supported by yum.
We kind of do. But existence of policy isn't a reason for absence of
support. We can make policy until the sun
On Fri, 31 Jul 2009, Miroslav Lichvar wrote:
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 09:12:23AM -0700, Jesse Keating wrote:
On Fri, 2009-07-31 at 17:41 +0200, Miroslav Lichvar wrote:
Right, I meant conflicts between latest versions of packages in
all repositories.
We have that too, for the packages that
Looks like this is on F10 as well [2]
-Doug
[2] http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1570320
On 07/31/2009 01:28 PM, Doug Warner wrote:
I'm trying to build libconcord [1] and am seeing the following problems with
the swig package in the buildroot on F11:
DEBUG util.py:256:
On Fri, 31 Jul 2009, Doug Warner wrote:
I'm trying to build libconcord [1] and am seeing the following problems with
the swig package in the buildroot on F11:
DEBUG util.py:256: swig-1.3.39-1.fc10.x86_64 from build has depsolving problems
DEBUG util.py:256:-- Missing Dependency:
On Fri, 2009-07-31 at 13:28 -0400, Doug Warner wrote:
I'm trying to build libconcord [1] and am seeing the following problems with
the swig package in the buildroot on F11:
DEBUG util.py:256: swig-1.3.39-1.fc10.x86_64 from build has depsolving
problems
DEBUG util.py:256:-- Missing
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 01:12:10AM -0400, James Antill wrote:
On Thu, 2009-07-30 at 21:42 -0400, Bill McGonigle wrote:
On 07/30/2009 08:49 AM, Michael Schroeder wrote:
Version 0.14.4 should have all fixes.
OK, my reported bugs are fixed.
It would have been more useful to end the
On 07/31/2009 01:38 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:
Perl dep generator gone wild on this package. There is probably some
comment in a perl file that says something like Use the argv it and
the dep checker thinks it's the perl syntax for use module
Yeah, I saw that. I was wondering if I should file
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 09:42:08PM -0400, Bill McGonigle wrote:
A cursory glance at the output shows similar solutions (the differing
reporting formats make it quite the back and forth to analyze). To be
fair, I have a few yum plugins loaded, so it may be doing more work.
solv's kernel
On Fri, 2009-07-31 at 08:52 +0100, Frank Murphy wrote:
Bug: 2009
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=507026
This is a side effect of me having two bugzilla accounts and needing to
periodically sync them. Sorry I missed it, I'm on the list now.
Also, I will once again try moving my
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 12:41:15AM +0200, yersinia wrote:
Ok. But these tests, or other, are something you could do done this
alone already , I am sure. I would not want to repeat myself, but IF
YOU WOULD REALLY have a larger user base larger ypu have to publish
your work as a independent
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 05:26:31PM +0300, Jussi Lehtola wrote:
Please release this as a separate project to help cross-distro
development.
Libsatsolver is already a separate project. It also has some
suport for debian (it can parse the Packages files and knows
how debian dependencies work).
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 05:36:14PM +0200, Florian Festi wrote:
Not a big surprise as solv does not have coloring (== multilib) support.
Actually it has some multilib support, but it's pretty much untested
as I don't know exactly how multilib is implemented in Fedora.
(SUSE does it very
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 04:23:27PM +0200, Florian Festi wrote:
On 07/27/2009 01:01 PM, Michael Schroeder wrote:
http://software.opensuse.org/search?baseproject=Fedora:11q=libsatsolver-demo
Hmm, where's the source?
You can get the source rpm by searching for libsatsolver instead
of
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 11:37 AM, Adam Williamsonawill...@redhat.com wrote:
snip
We ship rather a lot of applications which are fairly useless without an
internet connection. If the data is downloaded from the internet when
you run _the installed program_, I don't see any problem here.
snip
On 31/07/09 17:37, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Fri, 2009-07-31 at 09:42 +0100, Frank Murphy wrote:
I think what is meant, it that the app is useless, without either
web\media input. Which the user should not have to do to take full
advantage of it.
We ship rather a lot of applications
On Fri, 2009-07-31 at 13:35 -0400, Seth Vidal wrote:
I think swig has a bug in its packaging.
specifically
perl(ExtUtils::MakeMaker)
perl(argv)
perl(example)
perl(it)
perl(the)
I think those last 4 are an error.
at least I hope so.
They are. They come from the file
On 07/31/2009 01:12 AM, James Antill wrote:
*sigh*, if you want to do some benchmarking of different package
managers available in Fedora (zypp makes the 4th, if apt is working
again) then feel free to actually do _a bunch of work_ comparing apples
to apples. You'll almost certainly be
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 01:19:19PM -0400, Seth Vidal wrote:
We have a policy that forbids non-explicit file conflicts, yes.
I thought it applied to regular conflicts, now I see in the document
there are some exceptions allowed.
If you have two pkgs and you know foo owns a file that bar also
On Fri, 31 Jul 2009, Miroslav Lichvar wrote:
That might be a nice createrepo feature to add such conflicts.
That would only help you if you only have a single repository - which we
NEVER do b/c of fedora + updates + updates-testing.
Yes, but that's not what I'm talking about. I mean
On Fri, 2009-07-31 at 11:16 -0700, Jesse Keating wrote:
The spec has:
cat \EOF %{name}-req
#!/bin/sh
%{__perl_requires} `perl -p -e 's|\S
+%{_docdir}/%{name}-doc-%{version}\S
+||'`
EOF
%define __perl_requires %{_builddir}/%{name}-%{version}/%{name}-req
chmod +x %{__perl_requires}
Minutes:
http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2009-07-31/fedora-meeting.2009-07-31-16.59.html
Minutes (text):
http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2009-07-31/fedora-meeting.2009-07-31-16.59.txt
Log:
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 02:40:26PM -0400, Seth Vidal wrote:
That might be a nice createrepo feature to add such conflicts.
That would only help you if you only have a single repository - which we
NEVER do b/c of fedora + updates + updates-testing.
It could take a list of repos that the
==
The results in this summary consider Test Updates!
==
Summary of broken packages (by src.rpm name):
beagle
clipsmm
gauche-gl
gauche-gtk
On Fri, 31 Jul 2009, Miroslav Lichvar wrote:
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 02:40:26PM -0400, Seth Vidal wrote:
That might be a nice createrepo feature to add such conflicts.
That would only help you if you only have a single repository - which we
NEVER do b/c of fedora + updates +
2009/7/31 Colin Walters walt...@verbum.org:
I just want to say this is great work, and was sorely needed. Do you
know if there's anyone interested in working on installing updates
before reboot/relogin?
No, but it needs to be done. It's the sort of thing that PackageKit
can do easily.
[..]
17:45:48 Kevin_Kofler As for killing multilibs, a proposal for next
week: restrict multilibs to wine, redhat-lsb and their dependencies.
Rationale: way too much stuff which will never be needed multilib is
multilib. The people who really need that stuff should just use the
i?86 repo and
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 09:12:24PM +0200, drago01 wrote:
[..]
17:45:48 Kevin_Kofler As for killing multilibs, a proposal for next
week: restrict multilibs to wine, redhat-lsb and their dependencies.
Rationale: way too much stuff which will never be needed multilib is
multilib. The people who
On 08/01/2009 12:18 AM, Jon Stanley wrote:
Minutes:
http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2009-07-31/fedora-meeting.2009-07-31-16.59.html
Minutes (text):
http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2009-07-31/fedora-meeting.2009-07-31-16.59.txt
Log:
On Fri, 31 Jul 2009 14:48:02 -0400, Jon wrote:
Log:
http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2009-07-31/fedora-meeting.2009-07-31-16.59.log.html
http://portaudio.com/trac/log/portaudio/trunk/src/hostapi/alsa/pa_linux_alsa.c?rev=1412
The patch has also been merged by Audacity
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 tarball + patches from our package cvs is ideal. So I don't
see why we should continue have a lame exception.
Yeah, it's not idea. They should just
On Fri, 2009-07-31 at 14:21 -0400, Bill McGonigle wrote:
On 07/31/2009 01:12 AM, James Antill wrote:
*sigh*, if you want to do some benchmarking of different package
managers available in Fedora (zypp makes the 4th, if apt is working
again) then feel free to actually do _a bunch of work_
On Friday 31 July 2009, Tim Waugh wrote:
Beginning with the 8.70 release, Ghostscript will be licensed as GPLv3+.
This might cause problems for a bunch of packages.
$ repoquery --repoid=rawhide --whatrequires --alldeps ghostscript ghostscript-
gtk --qf=%{NAME}: %{LICENSE} | grep -vP
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 tarball + patches from our package cvs is ideal. So I don't
see why we should continue have a lame
Hi everybody,
Recently I took ownership of the par2cmdline package. par2cmdline is a
program for creating and using PAR2 files to detect damage in data files
and repair them if necessary.
The current version of par2cmdline in Fedora is 0.4. This is also the
latest upstream version. There hasn't
On Fri, 2009-07-31 at 20:30 +0200, Miroslav Lichvar wrote:
Yes, but that's not what I'm talking about. I mean the explicit
conflicts between current versions of packages. I.e. the thing that
makes the complexity exponential.
For example:
package A: depends on X
package B: conflicts with
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 atleast
whine about it if Novell or Mandriva or Debian did that. Wouldn't we?
Why should we have an
On Friday 31 July 2009 13:03:06 Erik van Pienbroek wrote:
[snip]
The current version of par2cmdline in Fedora is 0.4. This is also the
latest upstream version. There hasn't been any upstream activity ever
since the year 2004 [1].
Some time ago, par2cmdline was forked by somebody [2] and
On Fri, 2009-07-31 at 22:47 +0300, Ville Skyttä wrote:
This might cause problems for a bunch of packages.
$ repoquery --repoid=rawhide --whatrequires --alldeps ghostscript ghostscript-
gtk --qf=%{NAME}: %{LICENSE} | grep -vP '\bGPL(v3|\S*\+)' | sort
Wouldn't it be packages using the
Dear list,
The latest version R-BSgenome.Celegans.UCSC.ce2 is coming to the
repositories.
With it the license of the package changes from
LGPLv2+ to Artistic 2.0.
Best regards,
Pierre
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
On 08/01/2009 01:31 AM, Josh Boyer wrote:
Source0:
http://cvs.fedoraproject.org/lookaside/pkgs/anaconda/anaconda-11.5.0.59.tar.bz2/0b0b7b30f1ff03bad05bda3d052b73a8/anaconda-11.5.0.59.tar.bz2
is really no better.
This would ridiculous. I don't think any project is going to do this.
Even
On 08/01/2009 01:39 AM, 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 atleast
whine about it if Novell or Mandriva or Debian did
On Fri, 2009-07-31 at 19:55 +0200, Michael Schroeder wrote:
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 05:36:14PM +0200, Florian Festi wrote:
Not a big surprise as solv does not have coloring (== multilib) support.
Actually it has some multilib support, but it's pretty much untested
as I don't know exactly
On Sat, Aug 01, 2009 at 02:00:10AM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
On 08/01/2009 01:31 AM, Josh Boyer wrote:
Source0:
http://cvs.fedoraproject.org/lookaside/pkgs/anaconda/anaconda-11.5.0.59.tar.bz2/0b0b7b30f1ff03bad05bda3d052b73a8/anaconda-11.5.0.59.tar.bz2
is really no better.
This would
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 atleast
whine about it if Novell or Mandriva
On Fri, 2009-07-31 at 22:47 +0300, Ville Skyttä wrote:
On Friday 31 July 2009, Tim Waugh wrote:
Beginning with the 8.70 release, Ghostscript will be licensed as GPLv3+.
This might cause problems for a bunch of packages.
$ repoquery --repoid=rawhide --whatrequires --alldeps ghostscript
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 08/01/2009 02:17 AM, Josh Boyer wrote:
This is part of the problem. Perhaps the developers don't want to be bothered
with setting up a project hosting facility for something they to-date have
been releasing in a manner they find sufficient.
This is a bit of circular logic. They find it
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 Fri, 2009-07-31 at 14:17 -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
On 07/31/2009 01:48 PM, Josh Boyer wrote:
We don't complain about no public source repo. See deltarpm. It's repo
consists of the tarball we use already. It doesn't even have an easily
findable project website.
We're supposed
Jesse Keating wrote:
I've now generated the first of the mass rebuild status pages.
http://jkeating.fedorapeople.org/needed-f12-rebuilds.html
http://jkeating.fedorapeople.org/failed-f12-rebuilds.html
I will try to keep these updated multiple times a day.
In the case of the needed
On 07/31/2009 09:50 AM, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
Richard Hughes on 07/31/2009 10:43 AM wrote:
Not really. If you're running an old version of gimp, you can restart
[snip]
Fedora 10 and 11 support only 2,3
Unfortunately there's a bug somewhere then. I've been meaning to file
another bug
On 07/31/2009 05:27 PM, Nathanael D. Noblet wrote:
Which is what I was trying to communicate... Should I file a bug then?
Yes, please. CC me, too, or link me.
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
On 07/31/2009 04:28 PM, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
On 07/31/2009 05:27 PM, Nathanael D. Noblet wrote:
Which is what I was trying to communicate... Should I file a bug then?
Yes, please. CC me, too, or link me.
And this is specifically PackageKit, and not some break out from it like
an
On 07/31/2009 05:30 PM, Nathanael D. Noblet wrote:
And this is specifically PackageKit, and not some break out from it
like an applet or something?...
Yes, this is PackageKit. PackageKit contains an applet that appears in
your notification area on your panel when there are updates or
I'm getting a pile of these:
ERROR with rpm_check_debug vs depsolve:
rpmlib(PayloadIsXz) is needed by exim-4.69-12.fc12.x86_64
rpmlib(PayloadIsXz) is needed by crontabs-1.10-31.fc12.noarch
rpmlib(PayloadIsXz) is needed by logrotate-3.7.8-3.fc12.x86_64
rpmlib(PayloadIsXz) is needed by
ERROR with rpm_check_debug vs depsolve:
rpmlib(PayloadIsXz) is needed by exim-4.69-12.fc12.x86_64
rpmlib(PayloadIsXz) is needed by crontabs-1.10-31.fc12.noarch
rpmlib(PayloadIsXz) is needed by logrotate-3.7.8-3.fc12.x86_64
rpmlib(PayloadIsXz) is needed by tar-2:1.22-6.fc12.x86_64
2009/7/31 Tom Lane t...@redhat.com:
I'm getting a pile of these:
ERROR with rpm_check_debug vs depsolve:
rpmlib(PayloadIsXz) is needed by exim-4.69-12.fc12.x86_64
rpmlib(PayloadIsXz) is needed by crontabs-1.10-31.fc12.noarch
rpmlib(PayloadIsXz) is needed by logrotate-3.7.8-3.fc12.x86_64
Mathieu Bridon (bochecha) boche...@fedoraproject.org writes:
ERROR with rpm_check_debug vs depsolve:
rpmlib(PayloadIsXz) is needed by exim-4.69-12.fc12.x86_64
I had the same on F11, building in a Rawhide mock.
I was advised to update rpm to 4.7.1 that was in updates-testing,
which fixed the
On 07/31/2009 03:46 PM, James Antill wrote:
We also don't make progress by posting yum is 50x slower than solv for
update, and yet _predictably_ that is what this thread degenerated into
within hours of your post.
I seem to be reading a different thread. A few people were trying out
the
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 02:06:38PM -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
It is a random upstream project but one developed within Fedora and
Fedora can and should tell them not to do so. Why shouldn't we? Again
they don't need or deserve special exceptions. Treat them like any other
upstream project.
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 06:48:54PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Mathieu Bridon (bochecha) boche...@fedoraproject.org writes:
ERROR with rpm_check_debug vs depsolve:
rpmlib(PayloadIsXz) is needed by exim-4.69-12.fc12.x86_64
I had the same on F11, building in a Rawhide mock.
I was advised to update
On Fri, 2009-07-31 at 12:44 -0700, 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 tarball + patches from our package cvs is ideal. So I don't
see why we should continue have
On Sat, Aug 1, 2009 at 1:02 AM, Bastien Nocerabnoc...@redhat.com wrote:
That's what Moblin does, and you can ask Peter Robinson how much of a
pain it is. If we want to ask upstreams to do tarball releases, I don't
see why we should be making assertions like that.
It's only a pain because
Bastien Nocera bnoc...@redhat.com writes:
On Fri, 2009-07-31 at 18:48 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
[ consults CVS... ] So XZ support in F-11's rpm is less than a week
old, there is *no* support in F-10, and we're already requiring
the capability in order to do useful development work?
All I can
1 - 100 of 289 matches
Mail list logo
