Chris Weyl [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Dec 6, 2007 8:35 AM, Robin Norwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Rafael Garcia-Suarez [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
What's the perlmodcompat stuff, if I may ask?
This is the business that creates the directories:
/usr/lib/perl5/{5.8.6,5.8.7,5.8.8}
So that
Marius Feraru [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[My apologies for my digression, feel free to ignore it.]
Robin Norwood wrote:
/usr/lib/perl5/{5.8.6,5.8.7,5.8.8}
So that rpms built for older releases will still work. It's kindof
nasty, but as I understand it, it was to prevent having to rebuilt
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Robin Norwood wrote:
I'm probably missing the point, but I don't really see how this is
significantly better than the way we do the perlmodcompat stuff now.
Let's detail what these changes mean:
a) using ABI based layout (instead version based);
b)
On Tue, 2007-12-11 at 04:26 +0200, Marius Feraru wrote:
I guess we will talk about patches in January, when we'll deal with
rpm5's perl helper ;-)
Last time I looked, Fedora wasn't planning to use that fork.
~spot
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
On Dec 10, 2007 8:50 AM, Robin Norwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, for b), we still have: Provides: perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.10.0) in
the perl RPM, and:
Ohhh, duh. I was conflating the two.
-Chris
--
Chris Weyl
Ex astris, scientia
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Tom spot Callaway wrote:
Last time I looked, Fedora wasn't planning to use that fork.
Right, I remember the discussions; I should have kept the still-ranting
mark for that paragraph. Sorry ;-)
- --
Marius Feraru
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
It bounced -- I forwarded back on 11/28.
On Nov 28, 2007 9:21 AM, Toshio Kuratomi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Chris, if this bounces from the list, feel free to forward it there.
Chris Weyl wrote:
On Nov 28, 2007 6:25 AM, Tom spot Callaway [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 2007-11-28 at 14:46
Robin Norwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Robin Norwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Chris Weyl [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Along these lines... Do we have a plan for including 5.10 in
F-9/devel? With the RC out, it sounds like 5.10 will GA
not-too-horribly-soon from now, and we're at a point
Robin Norwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Chris Weyl [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Along these lines... Do we have a plan for including 5.10 in
F-9/devel? With the RC out, it sounds like 5.10 will GA
not-too-horribly-soon from now, and we're at a point in devel where
it's probably the Right
On 05/12/2007, Robin Norwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
o Most of our patches to 5.8.8 are either applied in 5.10.0, or fixed
differently.
- Many due to spot submitting all of them upstream when he
did the package review. Spot rocks.
Submitting upstream rocks. I'd like more vendors to do
On Wed, 2007-12-05 at 15:32 -0500, Robin Norwood wrote:
o Speaking of the perlmodcompat stuff - is 5.10.0 a good time to get rid
of it? Or we be kicking ourselves when 5.10.x is released and we need
to rebuild everything?
I think we should try to drop it. Upstream perl doesn't really
Rafael Garcia-Suarez [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 06/12/2007, Tom spot Callaway [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
o Some of the packages that we split into subpackages for 5.8.8 didn't
change version in 5.10.0:
perl-CPAN-1.76
This is baffling. Upstream CPAN is at 1.9205, I thought for sure this
Tom \spot\ Callaway [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, 2007-12-05 at 15:32 -0500, Robin Norwood wrote:
o Speaking of the perlmodcompat stuff - is 5.10.0 a good time to get rid
of it? Or we be kicking ourselves when 5.10.x is released and we need
to rebuild everything?
I think we should
Chris Weyl [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Along these lines... Do we have a plan for including 5.10 in
F-9/devel? With the RC out, it sounds like 5.10 will GA
not-too-horribly-soon from now, and we're at a point in devel where
it's probably the Right Time to think about bumping from 5.8 to 5.10.
Chris, if this bounces from the list, feel free to forward it there.
Chris Weyl wrote:
On Nov 28, 2007 6:25 AM, Tom spot Callaway [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 2007-11-28 at 14:46 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On Wed, 2007-11-28 at 14:35 +0100, Patrice Dumas wrote:
Maybe the solution could
On Tue, Nov 27, 2007 at 05:16:49PM -0500, Tom spot Callaway wrote:
Tom Callaway (aka, no one asked for it explicitly)
* perl-Alien-wxWidgets -- Building, finding and using wxWidgets
binaries
* perl-AppConfig -- Perl module for reading configuration files
*
On Wed, 2007-11-28 at 03:58 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
Seems to me, as if Fedora doesn't support collective maintainership ://
Its a technicality. There is no difference in rights or permissions
between primary maintainers and comaintainers, except that the packagedb
requires there be a
On Wed, Nov 28, 2007 at 07:40:15AM -0500, Tom spot Callaway wrote:
On Wed, 2007-11-28 at 03:58 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
Seems to me, as if Fedora doesn't support collective maintainership ://
Its a technicality. There is no difference in rights or permissions
between primary
On Wed, 2007-11-28 at 14:05 +0100, Patrice Dumas wrote:
On Wed, Nov 28, 2007 at 07:40:15AM -0500, Tom spot Callaway wrote:
On Wed, 2007-11-28 at 03:58 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
Seems to me, as if Fedora doesn't support collective maintainership ://
Its a technicality. There is
On Wed, Nov 28, 2007 at 02:26:38PM +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
What I wanted to find is how Fedora supports and destinguishes:
a) a principal w/ several co-maintainers under his directions
b) free for a specific group with changing members
e.g. free for perl-sig, free for FPG, free for
On Wed, 2007-11-28 at 14:35 +0100, Patrice Dumas wrote:
Maybe the solution could simply be to be able to add some comments in the
pacakgedb, telling who is really allowed to touch the package?
and select 'group members can commit?'.
IMO, the easiest approach would be to use perl-sig or
On Wed, 2007-11-28 at 09:25 -0500, Tom spot Callaway wrote:
On Wed, 2007-11-28 at 14:46 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On Wed, 2007-11-28 at 14:35 +0100, Patrice Dumas wrote:
Maybe the solution could simply be to be able to add some comments in the
pacakgedb, telling who is really
On Wed, 2007-11-28 at 15:41 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On Wed, 2007-11-28 at 09:25 -0500, Tom spot Callaway wrote:
On Wed, 2007-11-28 at 14:46 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On Wed, 2007-11-28 at 14:35 +0100, Patrice Dumas wrote:
Maybe the solution could simply be to be able to
On Wed, Nov 28, 2007 at 09:46:32AM -0500, Tom spot Callaway wrote:
I don't have any problem with this. They'll show up in cpancheck as
packages that I need to fix. You're the one who is getting worked up
over technical limitations.
And where would one find this cpancheck that knows how to
On Wed, 2007-11-28 at 09:22 -0600, Steven Pritchard wrote:
On Wed, Nov 28, 2007 at 09:46:32AM -0500, Tom spot Callaway wrote:
I don't have any problem with this. They'll show up in cpancheck as
packages that I need to fix. You're the one who is getting worked up
over technical limitations.
On Nov 28, 2007 6:25 AM, Tom spot Callaway [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 2007-11-28 at 14:46 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On Wed, 2007-11-28 at 14:35 +0100, Patrice Dumas wrote:
Maybe the solution could simply be to be able to add some comments in the
pacakgedb, telling who is really
On Wed, 2007-11-28 at 08:09 -0800, Chris Weyl wrote:
I'm buying what Ralf is saying here: to attempt to have collective
ownership via individual ownership and extensive co-maintainers is
another variant of dirty hacks.
Of course, I may be totally misunderstanding how the systems work
On Wed, 2007-11-28 at 09:22 -0600, Steven Pritchard wrote:
On Wed, Nov 28, 2007 at 09:46:32AM -0500, Tom spot Callaway wrote:
I don't have any problem with this. They'll show up in cpancheck as
packages that I need to fix. You're the one who is getting worked up
over technical limitations.
On Wed, Nov 28, 2007 at 01:05:45PM -0500, Tom spot Callaway wrote:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/UsefulScripts
That cpancheck seems fully capable of checking the packagedb.
I'll be damned. So it does.
Isn't collaborative development great? ;-)
Steve
--
Steven Pritchard
Steven Pritchard wrote:
On Mon, Nov 26, 2007 at 11:18:18AM -0500, Tom spot Callaway wrote:
The circular dependencies will be fun!
Hopefully a lot of those have been resolved with the EPEL rebuild.
First things first, lets divide up all of jpo's perl packages tomorrow
(assuming that he
On Tue, 2007-11-27 at 09:00 -0500, Tom spot Callaway wrote:
On Tue, 2007-11-27 at 04:40 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
Can't we agree upon to collectively maintain these soon to be
orphaned
packages in general? (Q: Who is we - perl-sig seniors? Everybody
who
maintains, say, more than 10
On Tue, 2007-11-27 at 16:00 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On Tue, 2007-11-27 at 09:00 -0500, Tom spot Callaway wrote:
On Tue, 2007-11-27 at 04:40 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
Can't we agree upon to collectively maintain these soon to be
orphaned
packages in general? (Q: Who is we -
On Tue, 2007-11-27 at 10:04 -0500, Tom spot Callaway wrote:
On Tue, 2007-11-27 at 16:00 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On Tue, 2007-11-27 at 09:00 -0500, Tom spot Callaway wrote:
On Tue, 2007-11-27 at 04:40 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
Can't we agree upon to collectively maintain these
On Tue, 2007-11-27 at 16:13 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On Tue, 2007-11-27 at 10:04 -0500, Tom spot Callaway wrote:
On Tue, 2007-11-27 at 16:00 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On Tue, 2007-11-27 at 09:00 -0500, Tom spot Callaway wrote:
On Tue, 2007-11-27 at 04:40 +0100, Ralf Corsepius
On Tue, 2007-11-27 at 14:57 -0500, Tom spot Callaway wrote:
On Tue, 2007-11-27 at 16:13 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On Tue, 2007-11-27 at 10:04 -0500, Tom spot Callaway wrote:
On Tue, 2007-11-27 at 16:00 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On Tue, 2007-11-27 at 09:00 -0500, Tom spot Callaway
On Sat, 2007-11-24 at 11:16 -0800, Chris Weyl wrote:
642 noarch
172 x86_64
-
814 total
I suspect we can ease the pain by coordinating a mass rebuild here,
and just kicking off the rebuilds centrally. (e.g. an annointed
Rebuilder In Chief)
The circular dependencies will be
On Mon, Nov 26, 2007 at 11:18:18AM -0500, Tom spot Callaway wrote:
On Sat, 2007-11-24 at 11:16 -0800, Chris Weyl wrote:
642 noarch
172 x86_64
-
814 total
I suspect we can ease the pain by coordinating a mass rebuild here,
and just kicking off the rebuilds centrally.
Tom \spot\ Callaway [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sat, 2007-11-24 at 11:16 -0800, Chris Weyl wrote:
642 noarch
172 x86_64
-
814 total
I suspect we can ease the pain by coordinating a mass rebuild here,
and just kicking off the rebuilds centrally. (e.g. an annointed
On Mon, 2007-11-26 at 16:04 -0500, Robin Norwood wrote:
* perl-Compress-Bzip2 -- Interface to Bzip2 compression library
* perl-DBD-CSV -- DBI driver for CSV files
* perl-DBD-SQLite -- Self Contained RDBMS in a DBI Driver
* perl-FreezeThaw -- Convert Perl
Tom \spot\ Callaway [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, 2007-11-26 at 16:04 -0500, Robin Norwood wrote:
* perl-Compress-Bzip2 -- Interface to Bzip2 compression library
* perl-DBD-CSV -- DBI driver for CSV files
* perl-DBD-SQLite -- Self Contained RDBMS in a DBI Driver
On Mon, Nov 26, 2007 at 11:18:18AM -0500, Tom spot Callaway wrote:
The circular dependencies will be fun!
Hopefully a lot of those have been resolved with the EPEL rebuild.
First things first, lets divide up all of jpo's perl packages tomorrow
(assuming that he doesn't come out of AWOL status
On Mon, Nov 26, 2007 at 04:08:22PM -0500, Tom spot Callaway wrote:
I'll just handle them when I move everything else tomorrow. Anyone else
interested in any of the remaining modules? (I'll take whatever
remains...but I'd prefer to share the load)
Feel free to put me down as a co-maintainer on
On Nov 26, 2007 8:18 AM, Tom spot Callaway [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, 2007-11-24 at 11:16 -0800, Chris Weyl wrote:
642 noarch
172 x86_64
-
814 total
I suspect we can ease the pain by coordinating a mass rebuild here,
and just kicking off the rebuilds centrally.
On Sat, 2007-11-24 at 09:34 -0800, Chris Weyl wrote:
Along these lines... Do we have a plan for including 5.10 in
F-9/devel? With the RC out, it sounds like 5.10 will GA
not-too-horribly-soon from now, and we're at a point in devel where
it's probably the Right Time to think about bumping
On 24/11/2007, Tom spot Callaway [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, 2007-11-24 at 09:34 -0800, Chris Weyl wrote:
Along these lines... Do we have a plan for including 5.10 in
F-9/devel? With the RC out, it sounds like 5.10 will GA
not-too-horribly-soon from now, and we're at a point in
On Nov 24, 2007 10:17 AM, Rafael Garcia-Suarez [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 24/11/2007, Tom spot Callaway [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, 2007-11-24 at 09:34 -0800, Chris Weyl wrote:
Along these lines... Do we have a plan for including 5.10 in
F-9/devel? With the RC out, it sounds
46 matches
Mail list logo
