Re: F17 process change proposal

Bruno Wolff III writes: > On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 01:08:56 +0300, > Kalev Lember wrote: >> With my proposal, Branched and rawhide would have exactly the same >> package set during the Alpha Freeze - Beta Freeze time frame. That way, >> we'd have a month to let users choose whether they want to

Re: F17 process change proposal

On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 01:08:56 +0300, Kalev Lember wrote: > As it is right now, it is somewhat difficult to get off the rawhide > track and to continue on Branched. For example, if a person that's yum downgrade works pretty reasonably if you haven't moved too far past. Broken deps cause issue

Re: Zif backport repository for F15 available for testing

Jef Spaleta wrote: > you have systems with just KDE and no GNOME installed yes? zif install > paprefs > > with kpackagekit not installed does zif do the more optimal thing and pull > kpackagekit in as a dep to fill PackageKit-session-service requirement? I'm not sure why you're asking that. It

Re: Zif backport repository for F15 available for testing

On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 4:11 PM, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > I hope the above helps answer your question. I can install the RC2 > with a minimal install if that would help any. > > Almost what I wanted :-> But appreciated. What you have asked Is a related question. What do you get if you have

Re: Zif backport repository for F15 available for testing

On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 16:42, Jef Spaleta wrote: > > > On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 2:25 PM, Stephen John Smoogen > wrote: >> >> What do you want me to do to try and test it more? Install some KDE items? >> > > Remove the gnome DE stack entirely install the KDE stack, make sure > kpackagekit is not i

Re: Responsibility for rebuilding dependent components, was: F-16 Branched report: 20110920 changes

On Sep 20, 2011, at 3:56 PM, Nicolas Chauvet wrote: > > I think the situation improved with bodhi buildroot overrides over trac > tickets. > But I've hit several issues with the opencv case: You make some valid points, however I was more concerned with the freeze break requests in trac, not nec

Re: Responsibility for rebuilding dependent components, was: F-16 Branched report: 20110920 changes

2011/9/20 Jesse Keating : ... >>> thus we have bodhi >>> and updates-testing as a gateway to get into the release. >> >> It's a gateway, I just don't think it serves as useful a purpose as it was >> intended to. > > > The question though really is whether or not it is more useful than a few > (li

Re: Zif backport repository for F15 available for testing

On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 2:25 PM, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > What do you want me to do to try and test it more? Install some KDE items? > > Remove the gnome DE stack entirely install the KDE stack, make sure kpackagekit is not installed and run it again. kpackagekit is probably going to be inst

Re: Zif backport repository for F15 available for testing

On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 16:06, Jef Spaleta wrote: > > > On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 1:17 PM, Kevin Kofler > wrote: >> >> Jef Spaleta wrote: >> > Kevin, were you able to reproduce my problem with the official adobe >> > repository? >> >> To be honest, I haven't tried it, I've been busy enough filing t

Re: F17 process change proposal

On 09/21/2011 12:47 AM, Bruno Wolff III wrote: > On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 22:38:32 +0300, > Kalev Lember wrote: >> >> I would also like to move everybody who has been on the rawhide branch >> to Branched at Alpha time, in order to get the maximum amount of testing >> for the new release. > > May

Re: Zif backport repository for F15 available for testing

On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 1:17 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote: > Jef Spaleta wrote: > > Kevin, were you able to reproduce my problem with the official adobe > > repository? > > To be honest, I haven't tried it, I've been busy enough filing the bugs for > the issues I found myself and retesting them with tod

Re: Responsibility for rebuilding dependent components, was: F-16 Branched report: 20110920 changes

Am Dienstag, den 20.09.2011, 22:25 +0200 schrieb Ralf Corsepius: > In a nutshell: Fedora's QA process is cause of many of these "broken > deps" complaints. Please make a proposal to improve the situation and submit it to FESCo. TIA, Christoph -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.o

Re: F17 process change proposal (was: Re: Responsibility for rebuilding dependent components)

On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 22:38:32 +0300, Kalev Lember wrote: > > I would also like to move everybody who has been on the rawhide branch > to Branched at Alpha time, in order to get the maximum amount of testing > for the new release. Maybe most, but not everybody. Some people work on stuff in r

Re: Responsibility for rebuilding dependent components, was: F-16 Branched report: 20110920 changes

On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 11:18:18 -0700, Jesse Keating wrote: > One change to make this better might be to move the inheritance point to > updates-testing so that things built from the fresh branch are immediately > inherited into rawhide. I think this would be a change for the better. I've no

Re: Zif backport repository for F15 available for testing

Jef Spaleta wrote: > Kevin, were you able to reproduce my problem with the official adobe > repository? To be honest, I haven't tried it, I've been busy enough filing the bugs for the issues I found myself and retesting them with today's snapshot. Kevin Kofler -- devel mailing list dev

Re: Responsibility for rebuilding dependent components, was: F-16 Branched report: 20110920 changes

On Sep 20, 2011, at 1:35 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > On 09/20/2011 05:30 PM, Doug Ledford wrote: >> - Original Message - >>> I'd like to see a rationale for jamming a soname-changing update into >>> the OS so close to a release. In the absence of a very good >>> motivation, >>> that's not

Re: Responsibility for rebuilding dependent components, was: F-16 Branched report: 20110920 changes

On Sep 20, 2011, at 12:19 PM, Doug Ledford wrote: > - Original Message - >> This is essentially what we had a while ago, only with trac tickets >> instead of bodhi requests. > > Bodhi is definitely a better place to track this stuff, regardless of how > decisions are made. > >> There wer

Re: Zif backport repository for F15 available for testing

Kevin Kofler wrote: > I'm building a new snapshot of zif, which should fix #739980 (but I have > to test that), and will be pushing it to the repository (no matter whether > it actually fixes #739980 or not). There's now zif-0.2.4-0.93.20110920git.fc15 in the repository, but you'll probably have

Re: Responsibility for rebuilding dependent components, was: F-16 Branched report: 20110920 changes

On Tue, 20 Sep 2011 15:19:29 -0400 (EDT) Doug Ledford wrote: ...snip... > > > 2) 9 times out of 10 there was very little data put into the ticket. > > Multiple options here. Kick back incomplete tickets, or the better > option IMNSHO, run rpmdiff runs between the package currently in the > co

Re: Responsibility for rebuilding dependent components, was: F-16 Branched report: 20110920 changes

On 09/20/2011 04:33 PM, Adam Jackson wrote: > Of course, you had the option of not pulling the new OpenSceneGraph back > to F16, or simply not doing so yet. Correct. I could have opted to ship the "distro which embraces novelty" with outdated, upstream unmaintained and upstream dead packages, no

Re: Responsibility for rebuilding dependent components, was: F-16 Branched report: 20110920 changes

On 09/20/2011 05:30 PM, Doug Ledford wrote: > - Original Message - >> I'd like to see a rationale for jamming a soname-changing update into >> the OS so close to a release. In the absence of a very good >> motivation, >> that's not good engineering practice, and it's not consistent with >>

Re: Responsibility for rebuilding dependent components, was: F-16 Branched report: 20110920 changes

On 09/20/2011 05:52 PM, Nils Philippsen wrote: > On Tue, 2011-09-20 at 15:19 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: >> When you have a closer look, you'll notice that such "mass rebuilts" >> were being delayed by QA's "delay queue" and now are stuck. > > I didn't want to (re)start that particular discussion

Review swap: phoronix-test-suite

Hi, i would like to offer a review swap for phoronix-test-suite (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=737263) Regards, Markus -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

F17 process change proposal (was: Re: Responsibility for rebuilding dependent components)

On 09/20/2011 09:18 PM, Jesse Keating wrote: > On Sep 20, 2011, at 11:11 AM, Panu Matilainen wrote: >> >> My personal pet-peeve with the current branching policy is that >> the mass-branching happens way way too early for packages where >> there are no significant new development to be introduced

Re: Responsibility for rebuilding dependent components, was: F-16 Branched report: 20110920 changes

2011/9/20 Christoph Wickert : > Am Dienstag, den 20.09.2011, 16:06 +0200 schrieb Nicolas Chauvet: >> I'm the maintainer of opencv here. >> >> quick answear: I have no right to submit a bodhi update for packages I >> do not own. Given that I'm no in the provenpackager group. >> So as I cannot expect

[Test-Announce] F16 Beta Go/No-Go meeting

Join us on irc.freenode.net #fedora-meeting for this important meeting. Wednesday, September 21, 2011 @21:00 UTC (17:00 EDT/14:00 PDT) "Before each public release Development, QA and Release Engineering meet to determine if the release criteria are met for a particular release. This meeting is c

Re: Responsibility for rebuilding dependent components, was: F-16 Branched report: 20110920 changes

- Original Message - > This is essentially what we had a while ago, only with trac tickets > instead of bodhi requests. Bodhi is definitely a better place to track this stuff, regardless of how decisions are made. > There were a couple of problems with > this. > > 1) Nowhere near enoug

Re: Responsibility for rebuilding dependent components, was: F-16 Branched report: 20110920 changes

On 09/20/2011 09:18 PM, Jesse Keating wrote: > On Sep 20, 2011, at 11:11 AM, Panu Matilainen wrote: >> >> My personal pet-peeve with the current branching policy is that the >> mass-branching happens way way too early for packages where there are no >> significant new development to be introduced i

Re: Responsibility for rebuilding dependent components, was: F-16 Branched report: 20110920 changes

On Sep 20, 2011, at 11:11 AM, Panu Matilainen wrote: > > My personal pet-peeve with the current branching policy is that the > mass-branching happens way way too early for packages where there are no > significant new development to be introduced in rawhide during branched > state. So for every

Re: Responsibility for rebuilding dependent components, was: F-16 Branched report: 20110920 changes

On Sep 20, 2011, at 8:45 AM, Doug Ledford wrote: > > Instead, I think we ought to revamp the process like this: > > Maintainer A builds new package B > Maintainer A files a bodhi ticket for package B > In that ticket, the maintainer is responsible for list each item of change > from the previous

Re: Responsibility for rebuilding dependent components, was: F-16 Branched report: 20110920 changes

On 09/20/2011 08:19 PM, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > Le mardi 20 septembre 2011 à 17:10 +0200, Miloslav Trmač a écrit : > >> So when _is_ a good time to do binary-incompatible changes to libraries? > > The answer is obvious - in rawhide, before branching point. Anything > after branching will interact

Re: Responsibility for rebuilding dependent components, was: F-16 Branched report: 20110920 changes

Am Dienstag, den 20.09.2011, 16:06 +0200 schrieb Nicolas Chauvet: > I'm the maintainer of opencv here. > > quick answear: I have no right to submit a bodhi update for packages I > do not own. Given that I'm no in the provenpackager group. > So as I cannot expect every single maintainers to respond

Re: Responsibility for rebuilding dependent components, was: F-16 Branched report: 20110920 changes

Am Dienstag, den 20.09.2011, 15:39 +0200 schrieb Sven Lankes: > Didn't we have the time an update had to stay in -testing changed to > three days during the F15 stabilization phase? Could we implement this > again for F16 to mitigate the issue? I think we should. Please file a bug against bodhi b

Re: Responsibility for rebuilding dependent components, was: F-16 Branched report: 20110920 changes

>> * What if there are two layers of users that need to be rebuilt? >> >> The delays just pile one upon another... > > You can update rawhide at any time and accomplish that work without > delays.  Then it shows up in the next Fedora version. > Yes, but then we have align the schedules, so have a

Re: Responsibility for rebuilding dependent components, was: F-16 Branched report: 20110920 changes

Le mardi 20 septembre 2011 à 17:10 +0200, Miloslav Trmač a écrit : > So when _is_ a good time to do binary-incompatible changes to libraries? The answer is obvious - in rawhide, before branching point. Anything after branching will interact with various groups schedules and crash into the barrier

Re: Responsibility for rebuilding dependent components, was: F-16 Branched report: 20110920 changes

- Original Message - > I'd like to mention that an upstream source getting bumped doesn't > mean > anything per se, so we should rather have criteria agnostic of > arbitrary > parameters like this. For instance, it shouldn't make a shred of > difference whether I apply a patch in the spec f

Re: Zif backport repository for F15 available for testing

On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 8:48 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote: > I hope we can get all the annoyances in zif sorted out soon. > > Kevin, were you able to reproduce my problem with the official adobe repository? I'm still not sure if my multiple issues with zif depsolving are a problem with my system specif

Re: Zif backport repository for F15 available for testing

Kevin Kofler wrote: > I have put up a repository with an updated zif snapshot for Fedora 15 at: > http://repos.fedorapeople.org/repos/kkofler/zif-backport/fedora-zif-backport.repo So, I found several issues, mostly in zif or PackageKit-zif, but also one in KPackageKit/Apper: https://bugzilla.redha

Re: Responsibility for rebuilding dependent components, was: F-16 Branched report: 20110920 changes

On 9/20/11 11:43 AM, Nils Philippsen wrote: > On Tue, 2011-09-20 at 11:33 -0400, Adam Jackson wrote: >> Of course, the accounts system _still_ doesn't have groups, five years >> later, so provenpackager is the big hammer we have. We could get groups >> any day now, that'd be just fine. > > Do you

[Bug 739882] perl-File-Listing-6.03 is available

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=739882 Petr Pisar changed: What|Removed |Added

Request for Review of C-ICAP, C-ICAP Classify

Hello All, I would personally like to see Nathan Owe's packages for C-ICAP and C-ICAP Classify reviewed and included if at all possible in Fedora. I have used C-ICAP for many years. I also am the author of MOST of C-ICAP Classify (thanks to Bob Jenkins for his lookup3.c hash functions). I know Na

Re: Responsibility for rebuilding dependent components, was: F-16 Branched report: 20110920 changes

On Tue, 2011-09-20 at 11:45 -0400, Doug Ledford wrote: > - Original Message - > > So when _is_ a good time to do binary-incompatible changes to > > libraries? > > > > * It's not after beta freeze, because they are unwanted at that time > > > > * It's not 14 days before beta freeze, becaus

[perl-File-Listing] Build-require perl(Test::More) needed for tests

commit d6851da18310de4ddbf9a2e0e550398ef7e153aa Author: Petr Písař Date: Tue Sep 20 17:53:45 2011 +0200 Build-require perl(Test::More) needed for tests perl-File-Listing.spec |2 ++ 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) --- diff --git a/perl-File-Listing.spec b/perl-File-Li

Re: Responsibility for rebuilding dependent components, was: F-16 Branched report: 20110920 changes

On Tue, 2011-09-20 at 15:19 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > On 09/20/2011 03:01 PM, Nils Philippsen wrote: > > On Tue, 2011-09-20 at 13:53 +0200, Johannes Lips wrote: > >> What's wrong with all that broken deps? Is this just a missing rebuild > >> against opencv and other libs or what's the reason f

[perl-File-Listing] 6.03 bump

commit 20c3cd49bf0a22edce1a275979df14ad4a8bb30d Author: Petr Písař Date: Tue Sep 20 17:44:56 2011 +0200 6.03 bump .gitignore |1 + perl-File-Listing.spec |7 +-- sources|2 +- 3 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) --- diff --git a/.gi

Re: Responsibility for rebuilding dependent components, was: F-16 Branched report: 20110920 changes

- Original Message - > So when _is_ a good time to do binary-incompatible changes to > libraries? > > * It's not after beta freeze, because they are unwanted at that time > > * It's not 14 days before beta freeze, because they won't get out of > updates-testing in time > > * It's not 14

File File-Listing-6.03.tar.gz uploaded to lookaside cache by ppisar

A file has been added to the lookaside cache for perl-File-Listing: ad56d06a719503198c02188995f32c9e File-Listing-6.03.tar.gz -- Fedora Extras Perl SIG http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl perl-devel mailing list perl-de...@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mai

Re: Responsibility for rebuilding dependent components, was: F-16 Branched report: 20110920 changes

On Tue, 2011-09-20 at 11:33 -0400, Adam Jackson wrote: > Of course, the accounts system _still_ doesn't have groups, five years > later, so provenpackager is the big hammer we have. We could get groups > any day now, that'd be just fine. Do you mean "groups of groups", like in "provenpackager-k

Re: Responsibility for rebuilding dependent components, was: F-16 Branched report: 20110920 changes

On Tue, 2011-09-20 at 16:07 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > On 09/20/2011 03:47 PM, Bruno Wolff III wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 15:01:06 +0200, > >Nils Philippsen wrote: > >> > >> I'd like to see a discussion about how we can ensure -- within > >> reasonable limits -- that e.g. bumping a

[perl-YUM-RepoQuery] Cache source tar ball

commit 5f90f6b2e0c312d1b895dfd33f5830bb72f6676a Author: Petr Písař Date: Tue Sep 20 17:36:02 2011 +0200 Cache source tar ball .gitignore |1 + sources|2 +- 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) --- diff --git a/.gitignore b/.gitignore index 0126a09..dbfd9e4 100644

File YUM-RepoQuery-0.002.tar.gz uploaded to lookaside cache by ppisar

A file has been added to the lookaside cache for perl-YUM-RepoQuery: 912c9df5a25f0fb3c051e1a9db5ede00 YUM-RepoQuery-0.002.tar.gz -- Fedora Extras Perl SIG http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl perl-devel mailing list perl-de...@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/

Re: Responsibility for rebuilding dependent components, was: F-16 Branched report: 20110920 changes

On 9/20/11 11:10 AM, Miloslav Trmač wrote: > * It's not 14 days + 3 (4?) weeks before beta freeze - even if the > library gets out of updates-testing in time, its users may not be > rebuilt because the maintainer is on vacation. You could have an earthquake, too. If you're having problems rebuil

[perl-Classic-Perl] 0.03 bump

commit 2ee1cc19056d4dc9866f4577c9e4ff002b21e24b Author: Petr Písař Date: Tue Sep 20 17:31:07 2011 +0200 0.03 bump .gitignore |1 + perl-Classic-Perl.spec | 12 +++- sources|2 +- 3 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) --- diff --git

File Classic-Perl-0.03.tar.gz uploaded to lookaside cache by ppisar

A file has been added to the lookaside cache for perl-Classic-Perl: 7bc0b2abb50f58f0adf014ae3f9e219a Classic-Perl-0.03.tar.gz -- Fedora Extras Perl SIG http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl perl-devel mailing list perl-de...@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mai

Re: Responsibility for rebuilding dependent components, was: F-16 Branched report: 20110920 changes

- Original Message - > I'd like to see a rationale for jamming a soname-changing update into > the OS so close to a release. In the absence of a very good > motivation, > that's not good engineering practice, and it's not consistent with > the > feature process. > > Perhaps you're not cle

Re: Responsibility for rebuilding dependent components, was: F-16 Branched report: 20110920 changes

2011/9/20 Miloslav Trmač : > On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 4:57 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote: >> On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 04:52:28PM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: >>> On 09/20/2011 04:37 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote: >>> >What the maintainers could have done is not upload a package that breaks >>> >binary compa

Re: Responsibility for rebuilding dependent components, was: F-16 Branched report: 20110920 changes

On Tue, 2011-09-20 at 16:06 +0200, Nicolas Chauvet wrote: > 2011/9/20 Nils Philippsen : > > On Tue, 2011-09-20 at 13:53 +0200, Johannes Lips wrote: > >> What's wrong with all that broken deps? Is this just a missing rebuild > >> against opencv and other libs or what's the reason for all this > >> "

[Bug 739887] perl-YUM-RepoQuery-0.002 is available

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=739887 Petr Pisar changed: What|Removed |Added

Re: Looking for dnssec-triggerd alpha testers!

On Sat, 2011-09-17 at 14:00 -0400, Paul Wouters wrote: > Hi developers of NM and Fedora, > > We are trying to get DNSSEC validation on the end nodes. One way of doing > that is to run a caching resolver on every host, but that strains the > DNS infrastructure because all DNS caches would be circum

[perl-YUM-RepoQuery] 0.002 bump

commit eba565f6f3d1b46d6fcda20b17fb9632888c1733 Author: Petr Písař Date: Tue Sep 20 17:16:33 2011 +0200 0.002 bump ...nzip2-output-argument-as-file-name-string.patch | 25 ...2-Remove-Test-DBICSchemaLoaderDigest-test.patch | 65 1.2-Update-Fedora-repo

Re: selinux versus chcon

On Mon, 2011-09-19 at 16:01 -0400, Fulko Hew wrote: > On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 3:32 PM, Eric Paris wrote: > > On Mon, 2011-09-19 at 14:49 -0400, Fulko Hew wrote: > > > >> If so... why use chcon versus the semanage/restorecon technique? > >> or if my assesement is wrong... can someone point me to a

Re: Responsibility for rebuilding dependent components, was: F-16 Branched report: 20110920 changes

On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 4:57 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote: > On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 04:52:28PM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: >> On 09/20/2011 04:37 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote: >> >What the maintainers could have done is not upload a package that breaks >> >binary compatibility into a distribution that

Re: selinux versus chcon

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 09/19/2011 04:01 PM, Fulko Hew wrote: > On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 3:32 PM, Eric Paris > wrote: >> On Mon, 2011-09-19 at 14:49 -0400, Fulko Hew wrote: >> >>> If so... why use chcon versus the semanage/restorecon >>> technique? or if my assesement is

Re: selinux versus chcon

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 09/19/2011 04:01 PM, Fulko Hew wrote: > On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 3:32 PM, Eric Paris > wrote: >> On Mon, 2011-09-19 at 14:49 -0400, Fulko Hew wrote: >> >>> If so... why use chcon versus the semanage/restorecon >>> technique? or if my assesement is

Re: Orphnaing some of my packages

> Hi, > Due to a lack of time, and to focus on the pacakges I use, I'm orphaning > some of my packages : > gestikk > > -- Use mouse gestures to control your PC (one bug : > https://bugzil

Re: Responsibility for rebuilding dependent components, was: F-16 Branched report: 20110920 changes

On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 04:52:28PM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > On 09/20/2011 04:37 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote: > >What the maintainers could have done is not upload a package that breaks > >binary compatibility into a distribution that's attempting to stabalise > >for release. > > That's a way t

Re: Responsibility for rebuilding dependent components, was: F-16 Branched report: 20110920 changes

On 09/20/2011 04:37 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote: > On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 04:35:16PM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > >> That said, a reasonable QA would cherry-pick such "solution >> candidates" from *-testing and integrate them. Simply flooding >> maintainers "with complaint mails" about broken deps

[Bug 739887] perl-YUM-RepoQuery-0.002 is available

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=739887 Petr Pisar changed: What|Removed |Added

Re: Responsibility for rebuilding dependent components, was: F-16 Branched report: 20110920 changes

On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 04:35:16PM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > That said, a reasonable QA would cherry-pick such "solution > candidates" from *-testing and integrate them. Simply flooding > maintainers "with complaint mails" about broken deps, maintainers > believe to already have fixed doesn't

Re: Responsibility for rebuilding dependent components, was: F-16 Branched report: 20110920 changes

On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 10:21:52AM -0400, Matthias Clasen wrote: > We've set our freezes as if we expect all major development to be done > at that point, but we've aligned our schedules in a way that guarantees > that (at least for GNOME) major development is still happening at the > time of bran

Re: Responsibility for rebuilding dependent components, was: F-16 Branched report: 20110920 changes

On 09/20/2011 04:16 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote: > On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 04:13:27PM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: >> On 09/20/2011 04:03 PM, Adam Jackson wrote: >>> I'd like to see a rationale for jamming a soname-changing update into >>> the OS so close to a release. >> Maintainers on vacation, non

Re: Responsibility for rebuilding dependent components, was: F-16 Branched report: 20110920 changes

On 9/20/11 10:13 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > On 09/20/2011 04:03 PM, Adam Jackson wrote: >> I'd like to see a rationale for jamming a soname-changing update into >> the OS so close to a release. > Maintainers on vacation, non-trivial changes? > > In my case, a major change was introduced into rawhi

Re: Responsibility for rebuilding dependent components, was: F-16 Branched report: 20110920 changes

On Tue, 2011-09-20 at 10:03 -0400, Adam Jackson wrote: > I'd like to see a rationale for jamming a soname-changing update into > the OS so close to a release. In the absence of a very good motivation, > that's not good engineering practice, and it's not consistent with the > feature process. >

Re: Responsibility for rebuilding dependent components, was: F-16 Branched report: 20110920 changes

On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 04:13:27PM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > On 09/20/2011 04:03 PM, Adam Jackson wrote: > > I'd like to see a rationale for jamming a soname-changing update into > > the OS so close to a release. > Maintainers on vacation, non-trivial changes? > > In my case, a major change w

Re: Responsibility for rebuilding dependent components, was: F-16 Branched report: 20110920 changes

On 09/20/2011 04:03 PM, Adam Jackson wrote: > On 9/20/11 9:19 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > >>> Currently >>> I only see mails of maintainers who plan updating the library, but the >>> rest of it pretty much depends on the maintainers of the depending >>> components rebuilding them quickly enough, an

Re: Responsibility for rebuilding dependent components, was: F-16 Branched report: 20110920 changes

On 09/20/2011 03:47 PM, Bruno Wolff III wrote: > On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 15:01:06 +0200, >Nils Philippsen wrote: >> >> I'd like to see a discussion about how we can ensure -- within >> reasonable limits -- that e.g. bumping a library's SONAME is followed by >> dependent components being rebuil

Re: Responsibility for rebuilding dependent components, was: F-16 Branched report: 20110920 changes

2011/9/20 Nils Philippsen : > On Tue, 2011-09-20 at 13:53 +0200, Johannes Lips wrote: >> What's wrong with all that broken deps? Is this just a missing rebuild >> against opencv and other libs or what's the reason for all this >> "mess". I mean the release of F16 is not that far away and the amount

Re: Responsibility for rebuilding dependent components, was: F-16 Branched report: 20110920 changes

On 9/20/11 9:19 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote: >> Currently >> I only see mails of maintainers who plan updating the library, but the >> rest of it pretty much depends on the maintainers of the depending >> components rebuilding them quickly enough, and the original maintainer >> to include them in the

[Bug 739887] perl-YUM-RepoQuery-0.002 is available

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=739887 Petr Pisar changed: What|Removed |Added

Re: Responsibility for rebuilding dependent components, was: F-16 Branched report: 20110920 changes

On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 15:01:06 +0200, Nils Philippsen wrote: > > I'd like to see a discussion about how we can ensure -- within > reasonable limits -- that e.g. bumping a library's SONAME is followed by > dependent components being rebuilt and included with the providing > component in one up

Re: how to have yum prefer one dependency over others

On Mon, 2011-09-19 at 18:11 +0200, drago01 wrote: > On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 5:46 PM, tim.laurid...@gmail.com > wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 1:00 PM, Kevin Kofler > > wrote: > >> Matthew Garrett wrote: > >>> Debian policy is that any virtual dependencies must also have an > >>> explicit dep

Re: Responsibility for rebuilding dependent components, was: F-16 Branched report: 20110920 changes

On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 03:19:17PM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > When you have a closer look, you'll notice that such "mass rebuilts" > were being delayed by QA's "delay queue" and now are stuck. Yeah. I rebuilt maatkit on the 1st of September and it still hasn't made it to the -stable reposito

Re: Responsibility for rebuilding dependent components, was: F-16 Branched report: 20110920 changes

On 09/20/2011 03:01 PM, Nils Philippsen wrote: > On Tue, 2011-09-20 at 13:53 +0200, Johannes Lips wrote: >> What's wrong with all that broken deps? Is this just a missing rebuild >> against opencv and other libs or what's the reason for all this >> "mess". I mean the release of F16 is not that far

Responsibility for rebuilding dependent components, was: F-16 Branched report: 20110920 changes

On Tue, 2011-09-20 at 13:53 +0200, Johannes Lips wrote: > What's wrong with all that broken deps? Is this just a missing rebuild > against opencv and other libs or what's the reason for all this > "mess". I mean the release of F16 is not that far away and the amount > of broken deps is quite big im

Re: F-16 Branched report: 20110920 changes

On 09/20/2011 12:53 PM, Johannes Lips wrote: > What's wrong with all that broken deps? Is this just a missing rebuild > against opencv and other libs or what's the reason for all this "mess". > I mean the release of F16 is not that far away and the amount of broken > deps is quite big imho. > I wou

Re: Askbot - Additional dependencies to be packaged

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 20/09/11 09:53, Matthias Runge wrote: > On 20/09/11 08:11, Rahul Sundaram wrote: >> Hi, > >> The upcoming release of Askbot (used for >> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Ask_fedora) has a number of >> additional dependencies. Django-registration i

Re: F-16 Branched report: 20110920 changes

What's wrong with all that broken deps? Is this just a missing rebuild against opencv and other libs or what's the reason for all this "mess". I mean the release of F16 is not that far away and the amount of broken deps is quite big imho. I would be glad helping out if this is due to some orphaned

Re: Orphnaing some of my packages

On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 10:07:34PM +0200, Nicoleau Fabien wrote: > Hi, > Due to a lack of time, and to focus on the pacakges I use, I'm > orphaning some of my packages : > perl-WWW-Curl >

Re: Askbot - Additional dependencies to be packaged

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 20/09/11 08:11, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > Hi, > > The upcoming release of Askbot (used for > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Ask_fedora) has a number of > additional dependencies. Django-registration is already in the > repository and was packaged i

[perl-ExtUtils-H2PM/f16] (5 commits) ...The package was approved in Fedora.

Summary of changes: 05bee47... Initial packaging of perl-ExtUtils-H2PM. (*) 880113c... Fixes based on Remi's review feedback. (*) dc6fb47... Update to latest upstream version. (*) d379eea... Remove the --optimize build option as per Remi's suggestion (*) 7c2cb9d... The package was approv

Summary/Minutes from today's FESCo meeting (2011-09-19)

Yesterdays meeting minutes were waiting for moderators approval. Resending without html log, which is available at: http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/teams/fesco/fesco.2011-09-19-17.01.log.html === #fedora-meeting: FESCO (2011-09-19) ===

Re: Askbot - Additional dependencies to be packaged

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 20/09/11 08:11, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > Hi, > > The upcoming release of Askbot (used for > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Ask_fedora) has a number of > additional dependencies. Django-registration is already in the > repository and was packaged i