Re: [Heads-Up][ABI Change] Boost has been upgraded to 1.48.0 on Rawhide

On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 11:16:32 -0600, Bruno Wolff III wrote: > > I don't think it is directly related. It is odd that the include is getting > flagged rather than an actual use. That could be a boost - gcc interaction. I noticed that adding some extra includes that were used in wesnoth sourc

[Test-Announce] 2011-11-21 @ 16:00 UTC - Fedora QA Meeting

# Fedora Quality Assurance Meeting # Date: 2011-11-22 # Time: 16:00 UTC (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Infrastructure/UTCHowto) # Location: #fedora-meeting on irc.freenode.net Greetings testers! This is a reminder of the upcoming QA meeting. Please add any topic suggestions to the meeting wiki

Re: Libs with applications

Does anybody know of anything I can try in Fedora 16 to get the other half of my files from the Deja DUP backup? Thanks, Richard On Nov 20, 2011 7:17 AM, "Steve Grubb" wrote: > Hello, > > I was curious how many library packages we have that also includes > applications in > them, so I wrote a s

Re: Libs with applications

On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 19:33, Steve Grubb wrote: > On Sunday, November 20, 2011 02:14:09 PM drago01 wrote: >> On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 8:03 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote: >> > Steve Grubb wrote: >> >> For example, if a 32 bit library is installed, which application is left >> >> - the 64 or 32 bit one?

Re: libcdio update coming to rawhide

On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 09:52:57AM +0100, Adrian Reber wrote: > I will soon update libcdio to 0.83 in rawhide which requires a rebuild > of following the packages: > > audacious-plugins > cdw > gvfs > kover > libcddb > oxine > pragha > pycdio > qmmp > xmms2 > > I will rebuild these packages if th

Re: Libs with applications

On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 02:33:34PM -0500, Steve Grubb wrote: > On Sunday, November 20, 2011 02:14:09 PM drago01 wrote: > > On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 8:03 PM, Kevin Kofler > > wrote: > > > Steve Grubb wrote: > > >> For example, if a 32 bit library is installed, which application is left > > >> - the

Re: Libs with applications

On Sunday, November 20, 2011 02:14:09 PM drago01 wrote: > On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 8:03 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote: > > Steve Grubb wrote: > >> For example, if a 32 bit library is installed, which application is left > >> - the 64 or 32 bit one? > > > > If you install ONLY the 32-bit multilib, the 32-

Re: Libs with applications

On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 8:03 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote: > Steve Grubb wrote: >> For example, if a 32 bit library is installed, which application is left - >> the 64 or 32 bit one? > > If you install ONLY the 32-bit multilib, the 32-bit version. > If you install BOTH the 64-bit and 32-bit packages, th

Re: Libs with applications

Steve Grubb wrote: > For example, if a 32 bit library is installed, which application is left - > the 64 or 32 bit one? If you install ONLY the 32-bit multilib, the 32-bit version. If you install BOTH the 64-bit and 32-bit packages, the 64-bit version (on all the platforms where 64-bit is preferr

Re: [Heads-Up][ABI Change] Boost has been upgraded to 1.48.0 on Rawhide

On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 18:13:14 +0100, Denis Arnaud wrote: > 2011/11/20 Bruno Wolff III > > > Is there any expected semantic change for using BOOST_FOREACH? > > I am having trouble rebuilding Wesnoth and get an error: > > foreach.hpp:6:17: error: 'boost::BOOST_FOREACH' has not been declared >

Re: [Heads-Up][ABI Change] Boost has been upgraded to 1.48.0 on Rawhide

2011/11/20 Bruno Wolff III > Is there any expected semantic change for using BOOST_FOREACH? > I am having trouble rebuilding Wesnoth and get an error: > foreach.hpp:6:17: error: 'boost::BOOST_FOREACH' has not been declared > and foreach.hpp is: > #ifndef FOREACH_HPP > #define FOREACH_HPP > > #inc

Re: FAS mails in Spanish?

On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 12:22:50AM +0100, Martin Sourada wrote: > Hi, > > just a few minutes ago I received a mail from FAS (I've double checked > that the info inside is correct and that it indeed came from fedora > infra machines) informing me of a user requesting a membership in one > of the gr

Re: [Heads-Up][ABI Change] Boost has been upgraded to 1.48.0 on Rawhide

Is there any expected semantic change for using BOOST_FOREACH? I am having trouble rebuilding Wesnoth and get an error: foreach.hpp:6:17: error: 'boost::BOOST_FOREACH' has not been declared and foreach.hpp is: #ifndef FOREACH_HPP #define FOREACH_HPP #include #define foreach BOOST_FOREACH #endif

Re: boost soname bump

On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 08:05:34 -0600, Bruno Wolff III wrote: > It looks like there was a soname bump in boost yesterday. Boost affects > enough stuff, that there really should have been a heads up message posted to > the devel list about this. It looks like there may have been a semantic chan

[Heads-Up][ABI Change] Boost has been upgraded to 1.48.0 on Rawhide

Hi, according to the dedicated Bugzilla feature request, Boost has just been upgraded (from 1.47.0

Re: Libs with applications

On Sunday, November 20, 2011 10:26:09 AM Steve Grubb wrote: > On Sunday, November 20, 2011 10:20:51 AM Josh Boyer wrote: > > On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 10:17 AM, Steve Grubb wrote: > > > Hello, > > > > > > I was curious how many library packages we have that also includes > > > applications in them,

Re: strange koji behaviour

On Sun, 20 Nov 2011 16:33:38 +0100, AR (Adrian) wrote: > I just tried to rebuild kover and it failed during build with a strange > error: > > http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/getfile?taskID=3527418&name=build.log&offset=-4000 > > The reason for this error is, however, a broken dependency. > >

strange koji behaviour

I just tried to rebuild kover and it failed during build with a strange error: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/getfile?taskID=3527418&name=build.log&offset=-4000 The reason for this error is, however, a broken dependency. http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/getfile?taskID=3527418&name=root.log

Re: boost soname bump

2011/11/20 Jussi Lehtola > Is the bump for real this time? I remember that some time ago the > soname was bumped but then returned, so I had to do two unneeded builds. > -- > Unless there are too much problems with this yes: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/F17Boost148 https://bugzilla.re

Re: Libs with applications

On Sunday, November 20, 2011 10:20:51 AM Josh Boyer wrote: > On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 10:17 AM, Steve Grubb wrote: > > Hello, > > > > I was curious how many library packages we have that also includes > > applications in them, so I wrote a small shell script: > > > > http://people.redhat.com/sgru

Re: Libs with applications

On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 10:17 AM, Steve Grubb wrote: > Hello, > > I was curious how many library packages we have that also includes > applications in > them, so I wrote a small shell script: > > http://people.redhat.com/sgrubb/security/lib-bin-check That just checks for a path. It doesn't chec

Re: boost soname bump

On Sun, 20 Nov 2011 08:05:34 -0600 Bruno Wolff III wrote: > It looks like there was a soname bump in boost yesterday. Boost > affects enough stuff, that there really should have been a heads up > message posted to the devel list about this. +1 Is the bump for real this time? I remember that some

Libs with applications

Hello, I was curious how many library packages we have that also includes applications in them, so I wrote a small shell script: http://people.redhat.com/sgrubb/security/lib-bin-check On my F16 installation, it finds around 60 packages that are libraries with applications. I'd like to ask if

boost soname bump

It looks like there was a soname bump in boost yesterday. Boost affects enough stuff, that there really should have been a heads up message posted to the devel list about this. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: Upgrading libpng: shall we move to 1.4.x or 1.5.x?

On Wed, 09 Nov 2011 10:42:10 -0500, TL (Tom) wrote: > > On Fri, 2011-11-04 at 13:12 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > >> I plan to provide the 1.2.x libpng shared library (and only the library, > >> not its devel support files) in a libpng-compat subpackage for the time > >> being. > > > Any reason why th