[Test-Announce] Fedora 16 Final Release Candidate 3 (RC3) Available Now!

As per the Fedora 16 schedule [1], Fedora 16 Final Release Candidate 3 (RC3) is now available for testing. Please see the following pages for download links (including delta ISOs) and testing instructions. Serverbeach1 is still available as a mirror (but with approximately a 1 hour lag behind dl),

Re: Packaging a Firefox extension

Martin Stransky wrote: > On 10/30/2011 06:37 PM, Ville-Pekka Vainio wrote: >> For now, I've only packaged the extension for Firefox, but I would like >> to add Thunderbird support as well. What would be the best way to do >> that? I could probably symlink the extension directory from >> %{_datadir

Re: Bug in javac ?

On 16:48 Mon 31 Oct , Andrew Haley wrote: > > > Am 31.10.2011 17:00, schrieb Deepak Bhole: > > > >> It looks like a known bug in the 6 compiler related to interface > >> inheritance and covariant return types. I think this is the commit > >> that fixed it in 7: > >> > >> http://hg.openjdk.j

gsoap updated in rawhide

Hi! The gsoap package has been updated to version 2.8.4 in rawhide only. Depending packages should rebuild: - CGSI-gSOAP - lcgdm - voms - VirtualBox-OSE (rpmfusion) Mattias Ellert gsoap co-maintainer smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature -- devel mailing

Re: irqbalance doesn't balance well x86_64 Fedora 16

On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 10:24:34PM +0200, Reindl Harald wrote: > > > Am 29.10.2011 22:04, schrieb Lucas: > > I do not understand why it places i915, eth0 and snd_hda_intel on the same > > CPU > > uname -a = 3.1.0-1.fc16.x86_64 #1 SMP Mon Oct 24 12:18:13 UTC 2011 x86_64 > > x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Lin

Re: Owning /usr/share/icons/hicolor

On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 1:06 PM, Mattias Ellert wrote: > mån 2011-10-31 klockan 19:02 +0100 skrev Till Maas: >> I guess the directory /usr/share/icons/hicolor and the usual >> subdirectories should be owned by the filesystem package. >> >> Regards >> Till > > hicolor-icon-theme is a filesystem pac

Re: Owning /usr/share/icons/hicolor

mån 2011-10-31 klockan 19:02 +0100 skrev Till Maas: > On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 11:42:59AM -0600, Jerry James wrote: > > > Are the fedora-logos and setroubleshoot packages doing it the right > > way, and other icon-installing packages need to be fixed? Are they > > doing it the wrong way, and shoul

Re: sponsor howto?

> Sorry, I'm using the wrong terms. A BR was already opened by > Kapil Arya > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=676335 > > I have discussed with upstream, and the asked me to take ownership of this > package, which I have agreed to. > > What do I need to do? > If it will be your pack

Re: sponsor howto?

Sorry, I'm using the wrong terms. A BR was already opened by Kapil Arya https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=676335 I have discussed with upstream, and the asked me to take ownership of this package, which I have agreed to. What do I need to do? -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fed

Re: Owning /usr/share/icons/hicolor

On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 11:42:59AM -0600, Jerry James wrote: > Are the fedora-logos and setroubleshoot packages doing it the right > way, and other icon-installing packages need to be fixed? Are they > doing it the wrong way, and should be fixed themselves? Does > ownership of that directory dep

Re: Bug in javac ?

> Am 31.10.2011 17:00, schrieb Deepak Bhole: > >> It looks like a known bug in the 6 compiler related to interface >> inheritance and covariant return types. I think this is the commit >> that fixed it in 7: >> >> http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk7/jdk7/langtools/rev/4a3b9801f7a0 >> >> If you have

FESCo Meeting Minutes for 2011-10-31

=== #fedora-meeting: FESCO (2011-10-31) === Meeting started by sgallagh at 17:00:21 UTC. The full logs are available at http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2011-10-31/fesco.2011-10-31-17.00.log.html . Meeting summary -

Re: Owning /usr/share/icons/hicolor

On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 12:42 PM, Jerry James wrote: > I need some advice for a package review I'm doing.  The package owns > all the directories from /usr/share/icons/hicolor down to > /usr/share/icons/hicolor/48x48/apps, where it stores its icons.  When > I objected that these directories were a

Owning /usr/share/icons/hicolor

I need some advice for a package review I'm doing. The package owns all the directories from /usr/share/icons/hicolor down to /usr/share/icons/hicolor/48x48/apps, where it stores its icons. When I objected that these directories were already owned by hicolor-icon-theme, the packager said: "This

f17-gmp and glibc-2.14.90-13

One of my packages (xemacs) failed the final build in the f17-gmp build target [1], and was marked FTBFS [2]. I see that the f17-gmp builds are now being merged into Rawhide. As I pointed out on that bug, the xemacs build failure was due to building against glibc 2.14.90-13. I don't know the exa

[perl-Devel-PatchPerl/el6] workaround rhbz#750145

commit 73607c42e8284f22d2e1142d0a8f9bf1afa7fe68 Author: Iain Arnell Date: Mon Oct 31 17:20:29 2011 +0100 workaround rhbz#750145 IPC::Cmd should require ExtUtils::MakeMaker, but doesn't perl-Devel-PatchPerl.spec |3 +++ 1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) --- diff

[perl-Devel-PatchPerl/el6] requires 'patch' (cherry picked from commit b30f13274d349d89c813b9c22b321d77514b3886)

commit d56416bf4b53400c31ab8c09e8d2028a46d4331d Author: Iain Arnell Date: Mon Oct 31 17:07:32 2011 +0100 requires 'patch' (cherry picked from commit b30f13274d349d89c813b9c22b321d77514b3886) perl-Devel-PatchPerl.spec |7 +-- 1 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) ---

[perl-Devel-PatchPerl/el5] requires 'patch' (cherry picked from commit b30f13274d349d89c813b9c22b321d77514b3886)

commit 8225d9192a46766ce72a78794fb7d55e58078bd1 Author: Iain Arnell Date: Mon Oct 31 17:07:32 2011 +0100 requires 'patch' (cherry picked from commit b30f13274d349d89c813b9c22b321d77514b3886) Conflicts: perl-Devel-PatchPerl.spec perl-Devel-PatchPerl.spec |6 ++

[perl-Devel-PatchPerl/f14] requires 'patch'

Summary of changes: b30f132... requires 'patch' (*) (*) This commit already existed in another branch; no separate mail sent -- 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/ma

[perl-Devel-PatchPerl/f15] requires 'patch'

Summary of changes: b30f132... requires 'patch' (*) (*) This commit already existed in another branch; no separate mail sent -- 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/ma

[perl-Devel-PatchPerl/f16] requires 'patch'

Summary of changes: b30f132... requires 'patch' (*) (*) This commit already existed in another branch; no separate mail sent -- 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/ma

[perl-Devel-PatchPerl] requires 'patch'

commit b30f13274d349d89c813b9c22b321d77514b3886 Author: Iain Arnell Date: Mon Oct 31 17:07:32 2011 +0100 requires 'patch' perl-Devel-PatchPerl.spec |7 +-- 1 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) --- diff --git a/perl-Devel-PatchPerl.spec b/perl-Devel-PatchPerl.spec index

Re: Bug in javac ?

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Am 31.10.2011 17:00, schrieb Deepak Bhole: > It looks like a known bug in the 6 compiler related to interface > inheritance and covariant return types. I think this is the commit > that fixed it in 7: > > http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk7/jdk7/langto

Re: Bug in javac ?

* Christoph Höger [2011-10-31 11:37]: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > Hi all, > > I am really unsure here, if this is a javac bug, or an eclipse glitch > or something plain strange. Consider the following interfaces: > > public interface A { > A foo(); > } > > public

Bug in javac ?

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi all, I am really unsure here, if this is a javac bug, or an eclipse glitch or something plain strange. Consider the following interfaces: public interface A { A foo(); } public interface B { B foo(); } public interface C extends A, B {

Re: Packaging a Firefox extension

On 10/30/2011 06:37 PM, Ville-Pekka Vainio wrote: > Hi, > > I'm maintaining the Finnish spell checking extension for Firefox called > Mozvoikko. Upstream recently released a Javascript-based version of the > extension, which I've now packaged in Rawhide. Spec file here: >

Re: sponsor howto?

> >> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=676335 >> >> is waiting for a sponsor. >> >> I'd like to sponsor it. >> >> What is the procedure? Do I change the >> >> Assigned To: >> Timothy St. Clair (edit) (take) >> >> By selecting 'take'? It is not clear if 'take' if for sponsoring the >> p

Re: sponsor howto?

> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=676335 > > is waiting for a sponsor. > > I'd like to sponsor it. > > What is the procedure? Do I change the > > Assigned To: > Timothy St. Clair (edit) (take) > > By selecting 'take'? It is not clear if 'take' if for sponsoring the > package, > or fo

sponsor howto?

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=676335 is waiting for a sponsor. I'd like to sponsor it. What is the procedure? Do I change the Assigned To: Timothy St. Clair (edit) (take) By selecting 'take'? It is not clear if 'take' if for sponsoring the package, or for the review. --

Re: glusterfs and hekafs release number for f16 and rawhide; systemd switch-over

On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 8:01 AM, Kaleb S. KEITHLEY wrote: > > Up to now the glusterfs and hekafs versions and releases have been the > same for f16 and rawhide, i.e.: glusterfs-3.2.4-1.x86_64.fc16.rpm, > glusterfs-3.2.4-1.x86_64.fc17.rpm, hekafs-0.7-16.x86_64.fc16.rpm, and > hekafs-0.7-16.x86_64.f

Re: F16: Non-fatal POSTUN scriptlet failure in rpm package python-libs

On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 2:44 AM, Paul Howarth wrote: > On Sun, 30 Oct 2011 08:57:41 -0500 > Richard Shaw wrote: > >> I'm trying to build a F16 package under mock on my F15 system and I'm >> getting the following error: >> >> Non-fatal POSTUN scriptlet failure in rpm package python-libs >> /sbin/l

glusterfs and hekafs release number for f16 and rawhide; systemd switch-over

Up to now the glusterfs and hekafs versions and releases have been the same for f16 and rawhide, i.e.: glusterfs-3.2.4-1.x86_64.fc16.rpm, glusterfs-3.2.4-1.x86_64.fc17.rpm, hekafs-0.7-16.x86_64.fc16.rpm, and hekafs-0.7-16.x86_64.fc17.rpm. I did that because the source, thus far, is exactly the

FESCo Meeting Agenda for 2011-10-31

Following is the list of topics that will be discussed in the FESCo meeting today at 17:00UTC (1:00pm EDT) in #fedora-meeting on irc.freenode.net. Links to all tickets below can be found at: https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/report/9 = Followups = #topic #667 - Request to fix CRITPATH update proce

F-16 Branched report: 20111031 changes

Compose started at Mon Oct 31 08:16:06 UTC 2011 Broken deps for x86_64 -- PackageKit-zif-0.6.19-3.fc16.x86_64 requires zif >= 0:0.2.5 bibletime-2.8.1-1.fc16.x86_64 requires libclucene.so.0()(64bit) cluster-snmp-0.18.7-

[Test-Announce] 2011-10-31 @ 15:00 UTC - Fedora QA Meeting

WHAT: Fedora QA Meeting WHEN: 15:00 UTC (11:00 EDT, 08:00 PDT) WHERE: #fedora-meeting It's meeting time again! We'll be trying to finish up F16 testing, and looking ahead to post-F16 times. If anyone has anything to add to the agenda, please reply to this mail, and whoever ends up running the mee

Re: F16: Non-fatal POSTUN scriptlet failure in rpm package python-libs

On Sun, 30 Oct 2011 08:57:41 -0500 Richard Shaw wrote: > I'm trying to build a F16 package under mock on my F15 system and I'm > getting the following error: > > Non-fatal POSTUN scriptlet failure in rpm package python-libs > /sbin/ldconfig: relative path `1' used to build cache > warning: %post