Re: merge reviews

On Thu, Jul 08, 2010 at 05:23:40PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Thu, 2010-07-08 at 14:28 -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > > Greetings Fedora developers... > > > c) Just leave them open and let people pick pick pick away at them a > > few at a time? We might be done by Fedora20. Or perhaps not.

Re: rpms/perl/devel perl.spec,1.273,1.274

On 07/08/2010 05:55 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > On 07/08/2010 05:07 PM, Marcela Mašláňová wrote: > >> Author: mmaslano >> > >> Index: perl.spec >> === >> RCS file: /cvs/pkgs/rpms/perl/devel/perl.spec,v >> retrieving revision

rpms/perl-Catalyst-Runtime/devel perl-Catalyst-Runtime.spec, 1.24, 1.25

Author: mmaslano Update of /cvs/pkgs/rpms/perl-Catalyst-Runtime/devel In directory cvs01.phx2.fedoraproject.org:/tmp/cvs-serv31895 Modified Files: perl-Catalyst-Runtime.spec Log Message: * Fri Jul 9 2010 Marcela Mašláňová - 5.80021-3 - 590961 add missing BR (warnings about nroff in bui

[Bug 552616] branch perl-Glib for EPEL-5 please

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=552616 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added --

Re: gcc-4.5-RH in F14

On Thu, Jul 08, 2010 at 08:48:29PM -0700, Roland McGrath wrote: > > This is accurate. > > > > the files must be identical if they are not elf binaries. > > I think the .py[co] files embed timestamps or something like that. > So they are nonidentical but not actually different at all. The embedde

Outage: Koji upgrade/migration - 2010-07-09 22:00 UTC

There will be an outage starting at 2010-07-09 22:00 UTC, which will last approximately 48 hours. To convert UTC to your local time, take a look at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Infrastructure/UTCHowto or run: date -d '2010-07-09 22:00 UTC' Reason for outage: Migrating the underling storage use

Re: gcc-4.5-RH in F14

> This is accurate. > > the files must be identical if they are not elf binaries. I think the .py[co] files embed timestamps or something like that. So they are nonidentical but not actually different at all. You want all python to be in things that you don't want two of, AFAICT. In general one

[Bug 502358] Review Request: mojomojo - Catalyst & DBIx::Class powered Wiki

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=502358 Iain Arnell changed: What|Removed |Added ---

Re: Python 2.7 status: mass rebuild of python packages requested

On Thu, 2010-07-08 at 20:02 -0400, David Malcolm wrote: > Here's where we are on Python 2.7 for Fedora 14: [1] > > I've updated my python src.rpm to 2.7 final (rather than the 2.7rc2 I > had previously): > http://dmalcolm.fedorapeople.org/python-packaging/python-2.7-3.fc14.src.rpm > > You can see

Re: gcc-4.5-RH in F14

On Thu, 2010-07-08 at 22:36 -0400, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: > On Thu, Jul 08, 2010 at 06:32:37PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > > > > I think it probably doesn't 'work', in the sense that you can't install > > the f13 -devel i686 and x86-64 packages together, but in another sense > > that's fine, a

Re: gcc-4.5-RH in F14

On Thu, 2010-07-08 at 22:36 -0400, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: > On Thu, Jul 08, 2010 at 06:32:37PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > > > > I think it probably doesn't 'work', in the sense that you can't install > > the f13 -devel i686 and x86-64 packages together, but in another sense > > that's fine, a

Re: gcc-4.5-RH in F14

On Thu, Jul 08, 2010 at 06:32:37PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > > I think it probably doesn't 'work', in the sense that you can't install > the f13 -devel i686 and x86-64 packages together, but in another sense > that's fine, as I don't think our multilib policy says you _will_ be > able to ins

Re: gcc-4.5-RH in F14

> So I'd package up stuff, do a koji build, download it, run my > representative test suite, upload the result and do another build. Oh. Well, sure then. What was the question? You don't want much of it automated at all then, but you're asking about the little? The profiled build will litter

Re: gcc-4.5-RH in F14

On Thu, 2010-07-08 at 18:17 -0700, Roland McGrath wrote: > > Is there a way to include pre-packaged workloads analysis? I realise > > we'd have to regenerate these somehow possible for each compiler update > > (not sure how the files look). > > What a "workload" means to the compiler is all the re

Re: gcc-4.5-RH in F14

On Thu, 2010-07-08 at 09:18 +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > Hi! > > F14 now has gcc-4.5-RH compiler instead of 4.4-RH. > For the changes (especially user visible ones), see > http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.5/changes.html > (though the list contains even many features that have been > backported to 4.4-RH.

Re: gcc-4.5-RH in F14

> I dunno, I'm not a multilib expert, just an asshole telling you to make > it work =) I'm no expert on the rpm part of the world either, but I have seen many things and I'll yell some out from the corner now and then. > I think it probably doesn't 'work', in the sense that you can't install > th

Re: gcc-4.5-RH in F14

On Thu, 2010-07-08 at 18:21 -0700, Roland McGrath wrote: > > This has a multilib problem. libstdc++ has a few of the same files in > > both the x86-64 and i686 packages, making it impossible to have both > > installed (which should be possible, and is in F13). > > > > The files are a few Python bi

Re: gcc-4.5-RH in F14

> This has a multilib problem. libstdc++ has a few of the same files in > both the x86-64 and i686 packages, making it impossible to have both > installed (which should be possible, and is in F13). > > The files are a few Python bits > in /usr/share/gcc-4.5.0/python/libstdcxx/v6/ . Would it work

Re: gcc-4.5-RH in F14

> Is there a way to include pre-packaged workloads analysis? I realise > we'd have to regenerate these somehow possible for each compiler update > (not sure how the files look). What a "workload" means to the compiler is all the results of all the conditional branches in the compiled code. What s

Re: merge reviews

On Thu, 08 Jul 2010 17:59:44 -0700 Adam Williamson wrote: > > Thank the magic of mediawiki! > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/PackageMaintainers/ReviewRequests > > seems several important pages do. So perhaps they should be updated to > use the link below.. 2 of them ar

Re: gcc-4.5-RH in F14

On Thu, 2010-07-08 at 09:18 +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > Hi! > > F14 now has gcc-4.5-RH compiler instead of 4.4-RH. > For the changes (especially user visible ones), see > http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.5/changes.html > (though the list contains even many features that have been > backported to 4.4-RH.

Re: merge reviews

On Thu, 2010-07-08 at 18:36 -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > On Thu, 08 Jul 2010 20:29:42 -0400 > Jeff Garzik wrote: > > > On 07/08/2010 08:23 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: > > > On Thu, 2010-07-08 at 14:28 -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > > >> Greetings Fedora developers... > > > > > >> c) Just leave them op

Re: gcc-4.5-RH in F14

On Thu, 2010-07-08 at 17:51 -0700, Ulrich Drepper wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 07/08/2010 09:05 AM, Chen Lei wrote: > > > It seems MeeGo builds core packages by using PGO already. Is there > > anyone who would like to volunteer to write a packaging guideline > >

Re: gcc-4.5-RH in F14

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 07/08/2010 09:05 AM, Chen Lei wrote: > It seems MeeGo builds core packages by using PGO already. Is there > anyone who would like to volunteer to write a packaging guideline > about using PGO? That's not so easy to generalize. As Jakub wrote, you

Re: merge reviews

On Thu, 08 Jul 2010 20:29:42 -0400 Jeff Garzik wrote: > On 07/08/2010 08:23 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: > > On Thu, 2010-07-08 at 14:28 -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > >> Greetings Fedora developers... > > > >> c) Just leave them open and let people pick pick pick away at them > >> a few at a time? We

Re: Python 2.7 status: mass rebuild of python packages requested

On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 4:02 PM, David Malcolm wrote: > Hope this is helpful > Dave Is there any hints on expected gotchas that we can look out for. Deprecations or API changes of significant merit? -jef -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman

Re: merge reviews

On 07/08/2010 08:23 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Thu, 2010-07-08 at 14:28 -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote: >> Greetings Fedora developers... > >> c) Just leave them open and let people pick pick pick away at them a >> few at a time? We might be done by Fedora20. Or perhaps not. > > Does the existence o

Re: merge reviews

On Thu, 2010-07-08 at 14:28 -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > Greetings Fedora developers... > c) Just leave them open and let people pick pick pick away at them a > few at a time? We might be done by Fedora20. Or perhaps not. Does the existence of a bunch of open merge reviews cause any actual harm

Re: gcc-4.5-RH in F14

On 7/8/10, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Thu, 2010-07-08 at 11:31 -0400, Brandon Lozza wrote: > > > A mass rebuild would be recommended as the new compiler will produce > > faster code. I believe everything will benefit and it's worth looking > > into. For example I noticed a significant differenc

Re: gcc-4.5-RH in F14

On Thu, 2010-07-08 at 11:31 -0400, Brandon Lozza wrote: > A mass rebuild would be recommended as the new compiler will produce > faster code. I believe everything will benefit and it's worth looking > into. For example I noticed a significant difference on the OpenSUSE > distro when GCC was upgrade

Python 2.7 status: mass rebuild of python packages requested

Here's where we are on Python 2.7 for Fedora 14: [1] I've updated my python src.rpm to 2.7 final (rather than the 2.7rc2 I had previously): http://dmalcolm.fedorapeople.org/python-packaging/python-2.7-3.fc14.src.rpm You can see/download a successful scratch build of this here: http://koji.fedorap

Re: merge reviews

On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 6:26 PM, Bill Nottingham wrote: > I'd like not to assume the worst, but given your mass closing of some > review bugs, plus your arguments here about why, plus your request for > a review swap earlier, I'm having trouble reading this as anything other > than a transparent fr

Re: merge reviews

Jeff Garzik (jgar...@pobox.com) said: > After a large survey, it is readily apparent that many of these 242 > have been untouched for -years-, for packages that have been merged > into Fedora and used happily for -years-. > > Further hundreds of other reviews outside your 242 are listed as > assi

Re: Licensing Guidelines Update - Please Read

Am Mittwoch, den 07.07.2010, 16:29 -0400 schrieb Tom "spot" Callaway: > Okay. Here's the list of packages that I think might be affected by > this. ... > [cwickert] nimbus: nimbus-metacity-theme-0.1.4-2.fc13.noarch > gtk-nimbus-engine-0.1.4-2.fc13.x86_64 nimbus-icon-theme-0.1.4-2.fc13.noarch $ r

Re: merge reviews

On Thu, 2010-07-08 at 14:28 -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > So, here we are today with 242 still open merge reviews: > http://fedoraproject.org/PackageReviewStatus/MERGE.html > (Plus a few that were closed when they shouldn't have been). > > So, what do we do? > > Some possible options: > > a) Ju

orphaning gg2

Hi all. I'm orphaning GNU Gadu (gg2). I no longer use it (pidgin replaces it quite well), upstream is dead and the project website domain has been taken over. If someone is interested, feel free to pick it up. Otherwise it should probably be dropped before F-14. There are some crasher bugs report

Re: Licensing Guidelines Update - Please Read

Hi, > [pfj] xmms: 1:xmms-libs-1.2.11-11.20071117cvs.fc14.x86_64 Unless something very odd is going on here, xmms-libs does have the COPYING file included (just checked the spec file). Could it be that there is a problem with the build sys on x86_64 which is causing it to miss? TTFN Paul -- B

Re: merge reviews

On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 4:28 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > So, here we are today with 242 still open merge reviews: > http://fedoraproject.org/PackageReviewStatus/MERGE.html > (Plus a few that were closed when they shouldn't have been). > > So, what do we do? > > Some possible options: > > a) Just close

Re: merge reviews

Am Thu, 08 Jul 2010 22:51:57 +0200 schrieb Till Maas : > On Thu, Jul 08, 2010 at 02:28:13PM -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > > > c) Just leave them open and let people pick pick pick away at them a > > few at a time? We might be done by Fedora20. Or perhaps not. > > > f) Make a concerted push to cle

Re: merge reviews

On Thu, Jul 08, 2010 at 02:28:13PM -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > c) Just leave them open and let people pick pick pick away at them a > few at a time? We might be done by Fedora20. Or perhaps not. > f) Make a concerted push to clear the NEEDSPONSOR blocker. Get all > those folks sponsored and ask

Re: Licensing Guidelines Update - Please Read

Tom "spot" Callaway wrote: > [rcritten] ipa: ipa-python-1.2.2-3.fc14.x86_64 False positive -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

[389-devel] Please review: [Bug 610281] fix coverity Defect Type: Control flow issues

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=610281 Attachments *git patch file (9.0)* (1.53 KB, patch) 2010-07-02 12:42 EDT , Noriko Hosoi /no fl

merge reviews

Greetings Fedora developers... First some background for folks that were not around back in the day: There used to be a "Fedora Core" and a "Fedora Extras". "Fedora Core" was maintained internally inside Red Hat by Red Hat employees. "Fedora Extras" was maintained by community folks much in the

Re: orphaning a few packages

I would like to take over nodm, sponsor needed. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=612671 -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: Licensing Guidelines Update - Please Read

On 07/07/2010 11:29 PM, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote: > [rrelyea] pcsc-lite: pcsc-lite-doc-1.6.1-4.fc14.noarch > pcsc-lite-libs-1.6.1-4.fc14.x86_64 Fixed in rawhide. -- Kalev -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: Outage: PHX2 outage - 2010-07-05 01:00 UTC

On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 6:02 PM, Mike McGrath wrote: > > There is an ongoing outage at this time in PHX2.  The exact start time is > not yet known and the ETA to be fixed is not yet known. > > To convert UTC to your local time, take a look at > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Infrastructure/UTCHowto

Re: Hey Presto!

On 8 July 2010 18:04, Jonathan Dieter wrote: > On Thu, 2010-07-08 at 17:33 +0200, Michael Schroeder wrote: >> On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 10:24:13AM +0200, Michael Schroeder wrote: >> > It's not that hard to fix, there's no need to keep the "target" >> > rpm in memory at all. The "source" rpm can be l

Re: Licensing Guidelines Update - Please Read

On 07/08/2010 12:09 PM, Matthias Clasen wrote: > On Wed, 2010-07-07 at 16:29 -0400, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote: > >> >> Q. I thought duplicating files in a spec was forbidden? >> A. This is a permitted exception to that. > > Can we get this new exception reflected in the packaging and review > gui

[Bug 552616] branch perl-Glib for EPEL-5 please

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=552616 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System 2010-07-08 13:45:23 EDT --- perl-Glib-1.223-1.el5.1 has been submitted as an update fo

[Bug 552616] branch perl-Glib for EPEL-5 please

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=552616 Tom "spot" Callaway changed: What|Removed |Added ---

Take over of libart_lgpl

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hallo, I will inform you, that I have take ownership of the libart_lgpl package. Best Regards: Jochen Schmitt -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iJwEAQECAA

rpms/perl-Glib/EL-5 perl-Glib.spec,1.20,1.21 sources,1.14,1.15

Author: spot Update of /cvs/pkgs/rpms/perl-Glib/EL-5 In directory cvs01.phx2.fedoraproject.org:/tmp/cvs-serv17302 Modified Files: perl-Glib.spec sources Log Message: disable tests Index: perl-Glib.spec === RCS file: /cvs/p

Re: Hey Presto!

On Thu, 2010-07-08 at 17:33 +0200, Michael Schroeder wrote: > On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 10:24:13AM +0200, Michael Schroeder wrote: > > It's not that hard to fix, there's no need to keep the "target" > > rpm in memory at all. The "source" rpm can be limited to some > > max size with the down side that

rpms/perl-GnuPG-Interface/EL-6 .cvsignore, 1.4, 1.5 perl-GnuPG-Interface.spec, 1.11, 1.12 sources, 1.4, 1.5

Author: mdomsch Update of /cvs/extras/rpms/perl-GnuPG-Interface/EL-6 In directory cvs01.phx2.fedoraproject.org:/tmp/cvs-serv28707 Modified Files: .cvsignore perl-GnuPG-Interface.spec sources Log Message: update to match devel branch Index: .cvsignore ===

Re: Licensing Guidelines Update - Please Read

Le 07/07/2010 22:29, Tom "spot" Callaway a écrit : > [remi] mysql++: mysql++-manuals-3.1.0-1.fc14.x86_64 done > [remi] ocsinventory: ocsinventory-reports-1.3.2-3.fc14.noarch false positive Regards -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listin

Re: Licensing Guidelines Update - Please Read

On Wed, 2010-07-07 at 16:29 -0400, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote: > > Q. I thought duplicating files in a spec was forbidden? > A. This is a permitted exception to that. Can we get this new exception reflected in the packaging and review guidelines, please ? -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedor

Re: gcc-4.5-RH in F14

2010/7/8 Jakub Jelinek : > Generally, much better speedup can be achieved by using PGO > (-fprofile-generate, run on some testsuite, -fprofile-use). > GCC itself is built that way for several years, but it would be useful if > other performance sensitive packages were built that way too, assuming t

Re: rpms/perl/devel perl.spec,1.273,1.274

On 07/08/2010 05:07 PM, Marcela Mašláňová wrote: > Author: mmaslano > Index: perl.spec > === > RCS file: /cvs/pkgs/rpms/perl/devel/perl.spec,v > retrieving revision 1.273 > retrieving revision 1.274 > diff -u -p -r1.273 -r1.274 > ---

Re: gcc-4.5-RH in F14

On Thu, 2010-07-08 at 11:31 -0400, Brandon Lozza wrote: > A mass rebuild would be recommended as the new compiler will produce > faster code. I believe everything will benefit and it's worth looking > into. For example I noticed a significant difference on the OpenSUSE > distro when GCC was upgrade

Re: please discuss: sane naming of critical path comps groups

On Thu, Jul 08, 2010 at 11:34:25AM -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote: > Till Maas (opensou...@till.name) said: > > Since these groups do not share a common prefix unique to all critical > > path comps groups, I want to propose to change this. E.g. there could > > be > > a) a critical-path-core group w

Re: gcc-4.5-RH in F14

On Thu, Jul 08, 2010 at 11:31:09AM -0400, Brandon Lozza wrote: > A mass rebuild would be recommended as the new compiler will produce faster > code. I believe everything will benefit and it's worth looking into. For > example I noticed a significant difference on the OpenSUSE distro when GCC > was

Re: Hey Presto!

On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 10:24:13AM +0200, Michael Schroeder wrote: > It's not that hard to fix, there's no need to keep the "target" > rpm in memory at all. The "source" rpm can be limited to some > max size with the down side that the end of the "target" rpm > cannot match the start of the "source

Re: please discuss: sane naming of critical path comps groups

Till Maas (opensou...@till.name) said: > Since these groups do not share a common prefix unique to all critical > path comps groups, I want to propose to change this. E.g. there could > be > a) a critical-path-core group with the same contents as core > b) or with only a groupreq on core > c) or

Re: gcc-4.5-RH in F14

A mass rebuild would be recommended as the new compiler will produce faster code. I believe everything will benefit and it's worth looking into. For example I noticed a significant difference on the OpenSUSE distro when GCC was upgraded and they repackaged their software with it in their developmen

Re: Licensing Guidelines Update - Please Read

On Wed, 2010-07-07 at 16:29 -0400, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote: > [ankursinha] beteckna-fonts: beteckna-fonts-common-0.3-5.fc12.noarch built in rawhide: > http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2305148 regards, Ankur -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.f

please discuss: sane naming of critical path comps groups

Hiyas, currently the critical path comps groups are named like this: core critical-path-base critical-path-gnome critical-path-apps critical-path-kde critical-path-lxde critical-path-xfce Since these groups do not share a common prefix unique to all critical path comps groups, I want to propose

[Bug 612583] New: perl-PadWalker request for EL-6 branch

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: perl-PadWalker request for EL-6 branch https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=612583 Summary: perl-PadWalker request for EL-6 branch Product: Fe

Re: Licensing Guidelines Update - Please Read

On 07/07/2010 10:29 PM, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote: > [kklic] emacs: 1:emacs-common-23.2-5.fc14.x86_64 > 1:emacs-el-23.2-5.fc14.x86_64 Fixed in rawhide. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

rpms/perl-Test-Differences/devel perl-Test-Differences.spec, 1.13, 1.14

Author: iarnell Update of /cvs/pkgs/rpms/perl-Test-Differences/devel In directory cvs01.phx2.fedoraproject.org:/tmp/cvs-serv30625 Modified Files: perl-Test-Differences.spec Log Message: * Thu Jul 08 2010 Iain Arnell 0.500-2 - explicitly require perl(Text::Diff) Index: perl-Test-Diffe

Re: Licensing Guidelines Update - Please Read

On 07/08/2010 10:37 AM, Chen Lei wrote: > Dose this mean we only need to add license text to -libs subpackage > instead of base package if we assume the base package depends on -libs > subpackage? If the base package depends on -libs subpackage, then you can only put the license text in -libs. ~s

Re: Licensing Guidelines Update - Please Read

On Thu, 2010-07-08 at 10:00 -0400, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote: > On 07/08/2010 04:39 AM, Ankur Sinha wrote: > > Can you please clarify this one? The sub packages depend on the -common, > > which has the LICENSE etc. docs. Is this because the main package > > doesn't Requires: -common? > > Caveat: I

Re: Licensing Guidelines Update - Please Read

On 07/07/2010 04:29 PM, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote: > [omajid] dbus-java: dbus-java-javadoc-2.7-3.fc13.noarch > [omajid] libmatthew-java: libmatthew-java-javadoc-0.7.2-2.fc13.x86_64 Fixed in rawhide. Cheers, Omair -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.or

Re: Licensing Guidelines Update - Please Read

2010/7/8 Tom "spot" Callaway : > On 07/08/2010 04:12 AM, Michael Schwendt wrote: >> On Wed, 07 Jul 2010 16:29:01 -0400, Tom wrote: >> >>>   However, if a subpackage is independent of any base package (it does >>>   not require it, either implicitly or explicitly), it must include >>>   copies of an

Re: Licensing Guidelines Update - Please Read

On Wednesday, July 07, 2010 10:29:01 pm Tom "spot" Callaway wrote: > Hello Fedora! > > Please take a moment and read this email. There's cake in it for you. > > [jreznik] leonidas-kde-theme: > leonidas-kde-theme-lion-11.0.3-1.fc12.noarch > leonidas-kde-theme-landscape-11.0.3-1.fc12.noarch rpmls l

Re: Licensing Guidelines Update - Please Read

On 07/08/2010 04:39 AM, Ankur Sinha wrote: > Can you please clarify this one? The sub packages depend on the -common, > which has the LICENSE etc. docs. Is this because the main package > doesn't Requires: -common? Caveat: I have not looked at your specific spec, so I am hypothesizing here. Lets

Re: Licensing Guidelines Update - Please Read

On 07/08/2010 04:12 AM, Michael Schwendt wrote: > On Wed, 07 Jul 2010 16:29:01 -0400, Tom wrote: > >> However, if a subpackage is independent of any base package (it does >> not require it, either implicitly or explicitly), it must include >> copies of any license texts (as present in the so

Re: Licensing Guidelines Update - Please Read

On 07/08/2010 03:52 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > Can you elaborate the cases below? > > I can't spot anything wrong with them: > >> > [corsepiu] gtkglext: gtkglext-libs-1.2.0-10.fc12.x86_64 > # repoquery -ql 'gtkglext-libs' > ... > /usr/share/doc/gtkglext-libs-1.2.0/AUTHORS > /usr/share/doc/gtkgle

Re: Licensing Guidelines Update - Please Read

On 07/08/2010 03:44 AM, Caolán McNamara wrote: > On Wed, 2010-07-07 at 16:29 -0400, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote: >> Basically, what this means is this: If you maintain a package, and that >> package generates subpackages, then each subpackage must either include >> a copy of the appropriate licensing

Re: Licensing Guidelines Update - Please Read

On 07/08/2010 03:07 AM, Till Maas wrote: > On Wed, Jul 07, 2010 at 04:29:01PM -0400, Tom spot Callaway wrote: > >> However, if a subpackage is independent of any base package (it does >> not require it, either implicitly or explicitly), it must include >> copies of any license texts (as pres

Re: Licensing Guidelines Update - Please Read

On 07/07/2010 10:49 PM, Juan Rodriguez wrote: > > > On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 3:29 PM, Tom "spot" Callaway > wrote: > > [nushio] rabbitvcs: rabbitvcs-core-0.13.3-1.fc14.noarch > > > I'm not very well versed in legalese, but rabbitvcs-core does include > the follow

Re: Licensing Guidelines Update - Please Read

On 07/07/2010 10:40 PM, Orcan Ogetbil wrote: > For instance, package A has a small A-plugins subpackage and a small > A-fonts subpackage which carries only two fonts. Both the A-plugins > and the A-fonts subpackages can be used by other software (independent > of A), but the main A package needs th

Re: Licensing Guidelines Update - Please Read

On 07/07/2010 06:08 PM, Matt Domsch wrote: > cim-schema-docs has no license file packaged with it. /me blames the > DMTF. The content is a separate tarball. I suppose we could suck the > license file out of the other content zip (the MOF files) and include > here. Thoughts? If the appropriate

Re: Licensing Guidelines Update - Please Read

On Wednesday, July 07, 2010 10:29:01 pm Tom "spot" Callaway wrote: > file-libs-5.04-10.fc14.x86_64 Fixed in rawhide > devel-announce mailing list > devel-annou...@lists.fedoraproject.org > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel-announce Jan Kaluza -- devel mailing list devel@lis

Re: Licensing Guidelines Update - Please Read

On 07/07/2010 10:29 PM, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote: > [plautrba] finger: finger-server-0.17-39.fc12.x86_64 Fixed and built for Rawhide. Petr -- -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

rawhide report: 20100708 changes

Compose started at Thu Jul 8 08:15:12 UTC 2010 Broken deps for i386 -- BackupPC-3.1.0-14.fc14.noarch requires perl-suidperl GtkAda-devel-2.14.0-5.fc14.i686 requires libgnat-4.4.so PragmARC-20060427-6.fc13.i686 require

Re: Licensing Guidelines Update - Please Read

> [psabata] iproute: iproute-doc-2.6.34-3.fc14.x86_64 Should be fixed. Both iproute and iproute-doc now install the COPYING file. iproute-2.6.34-5.fc14 iproute-doc-2.6.34-5.fc14 -- Petr -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: Recoll package

Ankur Sinha writes: > Becoming a package maintainer will need you to go through the links that > Stanislav has provided. I guess you can ask Terje Røsten , who > submitted the spec etc. to take over the review and package it (if you > don't want to do it yourself) Thanks, I'll try this, then,

Broken dependencies: perl-DBI-Dumper

perl-DBI-Dumper has broken dependencies in the rawhide tree: On x86_64: perl-DBI-Dumper-2.01-8.fc12.x86_64 requires perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.10.0) On i386: perl-DBI-Dumper-2.01-8.fc12.i686 requires perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.10.0) Please resolve this as soon as possible. -- Fedora Extra

Broken dependencies: perl-Data-Alias

perl-Data-Alias has broken dependencies in the rawhide tree: On x86_64: perl-Data-Alias-1.07-6.fc13.x86_64 requires perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.10.1) On i386: perl-Data-Alias-1.07-6.fc13.i686 requires perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.10.1) Please resolve this as soon as possible. -- Fedora Extra

Broken dependencies: perl-Pugs-Compiler-Rule

perl-Pugs-Compiler-Rule has broken dependencies in the rawhide tree: On x86_64: perl-Pugs-Compiler-Rule-0.37-4.fc13.noarch requires perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.10.1) On i386: perl-Pugs-Compiler-Rule-0.37-4.fc13.noarch requires perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.10.1) Please resolve this as soon as

Re: Recoll package

On Thu, 2010-07-08 at 13:45 +0200, Jean-Francois Dockes wrote: > Hello again, > > I am told that I need to add the FE-NEEDSPONSOR to the blocked bugs list > for the review request. If I understand well, this is so that I can find a > sponsor to become a Fedora package maintainer. > > Maybe I'm b

Re: Licensing Guidelines Update - Please Read

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 07/07/2010 04:29 PM, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote: > [sgallagh] sssd: libcollection-0.4.0-15.fc14.x86_64 > libpath_utils-0.2.0-15.fc14.x86_64 libref_array-0.1.0-15.fc14.x86_64 > libdhash-0.4.0-15.fc14.x86_64 sssd-client-1.2.1-15.fc14.x86_64 All of the

Re: Licensing Guidelines Update - Please Read

On 07/07/2010 10:29 PM, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote: > [jsafrane] net-snmp: 1:net-snmp-libs-5.5-16.fc14.x86_64 False positive, net-snmp-libs already contains COPYING in %doc > [jsafrane] OpenIPMI: OpenIPMI-libs-2.0.18-2.fc14.x86_64 Fixed, OpenIPMI-2.0.18-3.fc14 Jan -- devel mailing list devel@li

Re: Licensing Guidelines Update - Please Read

>[jskarvad] sendmail: sendmail-milter-8.14.4-8.fc14.x86_64 license added to sendmail-milter-8.14.4-9.fc14 regards Jaroslav -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: Licensing Guidelines Update - Please Read

On Wed, 07 Jul 2010 16:29:01 -0400 Tom "spot" Callaway wrote: > [michich] opencryptoki: opencryptoki-libs-2.3.1-6.fc14.x86_64 > [michich] tpm-tools: tpm-tools-pkcs11-1.3.5-2.fc13.x86_64 Fixed and built for Rawhide. Michal -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedorapr

Re: Recoll package

Hello again, I am told that I need to add the FE-NEEDSPONSOR to the blocked bugs list for the review request. If I understand well, this is so that I can find a sponsor to become a Fedora package maintainer. Maybe I'm being a bit dense here, and not doing it the right way, but my primary hope w

Re: Licensing Guidelines Update - Please Read

[sharkcz] ann: ann-libs-1.1.1-4.fc12.x86_64 => already in -libs [sharkcz] codeblocks: codeblocks-libs-10.05-1.fc14.x86_64 => fixed in CVS [sharkcz] openhpi: openhpi-libs-2.14.1-3.fc14.x86_64 => fixed in CVS [sharkcz] podofo: podofo-libs-0.8.1-2.fc14.x86_64 => correct in actual pkgs [sharkcz] sg

Re: gcc-4.5-RH in F14

On Thu, 2010-07-08 at 09:18 +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > Hi! > > F14 now has gcc-4.5-RH compiler instead of 4.4-RH. icu test-suite fails in koji with 4.5.0, but passes locally with 4.4.4. If I get a chance after fiddling with all the licence foo I'll see if its truly gcc related or some specific

Re: Recoll package

On Thu, 2010-07-08 at 10:02 +0200, Jean-Francois Dockes wrote: > Review request: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=590473 Taken, regards, Ankur -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: Recoll package

On 07/08/2010 10:02 AM, Jean-Francois Dockes wrote: > Could someone tell me if I need to do something to advance the review > request or if there is simply no interest ? > > Review request: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=590473 > Hello, the fastest way is offer swap review. Reviews

  1   2   >