On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 11:24:09PM -0800, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> 2) the systemd exceptions allows placing files in %{_prefix}/lib rather
> than %{_libdir} (the exceptions allow both putting the helper apps in there
> which would generally be okay with just a multilib exception and the unit
> fil
On Thu, 2012-12-20 at 23:24 -0800, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> Since neither of these things are required by the packaging
> guidelines, I believe the premise of your argument is deeply flawed.
> 1) As i've said before, there is no packaging guideline requirement
> that maintainers restrict helper
- Original Message -
> On Thu, 20 Dec 2012 13:47:56 +0100
> Vít Ondruch wrote:
>
> > Hi everybody,
>
> ...snip...
>
> >- Due to better integration of JRuby into Fedora [3], we would
> > like to take this opportunity to restructure RubyGems folder
> > layout. This should allow u
-Toshio
On Dec 20, 2012 7:05 PM, "Adam Williamson" wrote:
>
> On Thu, 2012-12-20 at 18:54 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
>
> > A systemd-specific exception works for systemd, fine, but it doesn't
> > really seem to address the root problem.
>
> To further elaborate: the 'root problem', it seems to
On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 07:16:12AM +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On 12/21/2012 06:36 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> >So?
>
> Next the FHS, it is one of the fundamental "standards", which define
> the basis of all packaging works on Linux/GNU and thus also the FPG.
No, it defines the GNU project's
On 12/21/2012 06:36 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 06:09:10AM +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 12/21/2012 05:54 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 05:38:17AM +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
I disagree. systemd simply hasn't taken libexecdir into account in
its
On 12/21/2012 06:16 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Fri, 2012-12-21 at 06:09 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 12/21/2012 05:54 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 05:38:17AM +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
I disagree. systemd simply hasn't taken libexecdir into account in
its design
On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 06:09:10AM +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On 12/21/2012 05:54 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> >On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 05:38:17AM +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> >
> >>I disagree. systemd simply hasn't taken libexecdir into account in
> >>its design and now is trying to propagat
On Fri, 2012-12-21 at 06:09 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On 12/21/2012 05:54 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 05:38:17AM +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> >
> >> I disagree. systemd simply hasn't taken libexecdir into account in
> >> its design and now is trying to propagate th
On 12/21/2012 05:54 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 05:38:17AM +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
I disagree. systemd simply hasn't taken libexecdir into account in
its design and now is trying to propagate their oversight/mistake as
"standard" instead of making their works complia
On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 08:57:58PM -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> IMHO, libexecdir is not part of this at all... we already have:
>
> "If upstream's build scripts support the use of %{_libexecdir} then
> that is the most appropriate place to configure it (eg. passing
> --libexecdir=%{libexecdir}/%{n
On 12/21/2012 01:15 AM, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 04:05:36PM -0800, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
As I said in the meeting, libexec is somewhat of a red herring here. The
packaging guidelines already allow substituting subdirs of %_libdir for
%_libexecdir. What's in question is be
On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 05:38:17AM +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> I disagree. systemd simply hasn't taken libexecdir into account in
> its design and now is trying to propagate their oversight/mistake as
> "standard" instead of making their works compliant with _our_
> distro's demands.
libexec d
On 12/21/2012 12:27 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 10:30:37PM +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
Thanks, but I think the bit I'm mising is why can't systemd use
libexec? (Apart from their declaration that libexec is wrong or not
the de-facto standard they themselves made up,
On Thu, 2012-12-20 at 23:01 -0500, Paul Wouters wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Dec 2012, Adam Williamson wrote:
>
> > All this for the rather questionable benefit of having a specifically
> > defined place for helper-scripts-not-meant-to-be-executed-directly,
> > which gains us...what, exactly, over just put
On Thu, 20 Dec 2012, Adam Williamson wrote:
All this for the rather questionable benefit of having a specifically
defined place for helper-scripts-not-meant-to-be-executed-directly,
which gains us...what, exactly, over just putting them
in /usr/lib/(appname) or /usr/share/(appname) or whatever?
On Thu, 20 Dec 2012 19:10:45 -0800
Adam Williamson wrote:
> Hm, I missed the point that the exception is for lib/foo vs.
> %libdir/foo (arched vs. non-arched). That makes it a more complex
> three-way argument. But I think the point about libexecdir being
> pointless still stands.
IMHO, libexecd
On Thu, 20 Dec 2012 13:47:56 +0100
Vít Ondruch wrote:
> Hi everybody,
...snip...
>- Due to better integration of JRuby into Fedora [3], we would
> like to take this opportunity to restructure RubyGems folder
> layout. This should allow us to support Rubinius in the future
> as well.
>
On Fri, 2012-12-21 at 04:22 +0100, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 4:05 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > On Thu, 2012-12-20 at 18:54 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> >
> >> A systemd-specific exception works for systemd, fine, but it doesn't
> >> really seem to address the root proble
On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 4:05 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-12-20 at 18:54 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
>
>> A systemd-specific exception works for systemd, fine, but it doesn't
>> really seem to address the root problem.
>
> To further elaborate: the 'root problem', it seems to me, is
On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 07:05:20PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > A systemd-specific exception works for systemd, fine, but it doesn't
> > really seem to address the root problem.
> To further elaborate: the 'root problem', it seems to me, is that this
> 'Fedoraism' as Lennart calls it results i
On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 06:54:24PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> It seemed perfectly clear from context that what Lennart was arguing is
> that the guidelines should be changed and we should stop using
> this /usr/libexec directory which no-one outside of RH-derived distros
> has adopted, and whi
On Thu, 2012-12-20 at 19:05 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-12-20 at 18:54 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
>
> > A systemd-specific exception works for systemd, fine, but it doesn't
> > really seem to address the root problem.
>
> To further elaborate: the 'root problem', it seems to m
On Thu, 2012-12-20 at 18:54 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> A systemd-specific exception works for systemd, fine, but it doesn't
> really seem to address the root problem.
To further elaborate: the 'root problem', it seems to me, is that this
'Fedoraism' as Lennart calls it results in one of two
On Thu, 2012-12-20 at 18:48 -0800, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 06:07:58PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > On Thu, 2012-12-20 at 17:50 -0800, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> >
> > > > Just making systemd the exception sounds like chickening out from the
> > > > real solution which i
On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 06:07:58PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-12-20 at 17:50 -0800, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
>
> > > Just making systemd the exception sounds like chickening out from the
> > > real solution which is to end this Fedoraism.
> > >
> > Well really it's us not wanting
On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 1:06 AM, Lennart Poettering
wrote:
> declare
> that lib/ is the place for package-specific stuff and
> share/ the place that is shared between packages.
If this is supposed to be within current FHS (and not a proposal to
abandon it), the above is a gross misunderstanding o
On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 07:05:52PM -0700, Orion Poplawski wrote:
> Shouldn't they be in /usr/share/systemd?
The helper binaries? No. The unit files? They need to be in / rather
than /usr, which obviously isn't a problem for Fedora but would be on
some other distributions.
--
Matthew Garrett |
On Thu, 2012-12-20 at 17:50 -0800, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> > Just making systemd the exception sounds like chickening out from the
> > real solution which is to end this Fedoraism.
> >
> Well really it's us not wanting to fight to make you do the right thing any
> longer. If you want us to take
On 12/20/2012 03:30 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 12:02:22PM -0800, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
The effect of this is:
FPC will write into the Guidelines (probably where libexec is mentioned
since that's where the note about being able to use %{_libdir} as an
alternative to %
On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 01:06:13AM +0100, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> On Thu, 20.12.12 12:02, Toshio Kuratomi (a.bad...@gmail.com) wrote:
>
> >
> > FPC will write into the Guidelines (probably where libexec is mentioned
> > since that's where the note about being able to use %{_libdir} as an
> >
On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 04:05:36PM -0800, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> On Dec 20, 2012 3:16 PM, "Richard W.M. Jones" wrote:
> > Thanks, but I think the bit I'm mising is why can't systemd use
> > libexec? (Apart from their declaration that libexec is wrong or not
> > the de-facto standard they themse
On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 04:05:36PM -0800, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> As I said in the meeting, libexec is somewhat of a red herring here. The
> packaging guidelines already allow substituting subdirs of %_libdir for
> %_libexecdir. What's in question is being able to use /usr/lib for arch
> specifi
On Thu, 20.12.12 12:02, Toshio Kuratomi (a.bad...@gmail.com) wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 02:28:48PM +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 01:54:57AM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > > On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 11:56:36PM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> > >
> > > > Yuck! I
On Dec 20, 2012 3:16 PM, "Richard W.M. Jones" wrote:
>
> On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 12:02:22PM -0800, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> > The effect of this is:
> >
> > FPC will write into the Guidelines (probably where libexec is mentioned
> > since that's where the note about being able to use %{_libdir} as
On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 10:30:37PM +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> Thanks, but I think the bit I'm mising is why can't systemd use
> libexec? (Apart from their declaration that libexec is wrong or not
> the de-facto standard they themselves made up, which is not a reason).
Because libexec doe
On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 11:16:18PM +0100, Reindl Harald wrote:
> > ImageMagick itself pulls in a bunch of stuff directly, including X11 libs,
> > which makes sense because it includes utilities which are X clients.
> > Possibly the chain could be broken by packinging some utilities like
> > `displa
On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 12:02:22PM -0800, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> The effect of this is:
>
> FPC will write into the Guidelines (probably where libexec is mentioned
> since that's where the note about being able to use %{_libdir} as an
> alternative to %{_libexecdir} is ) that the systemd helper
Am 20.12.2012 22:47, schrieb Matthew Miller:
> On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 04:08:27PM -0500, Matthew Miller wrote:
>> Anyway, it is true that there is some dep chain from installing ImageMagick
>> on a bare server which brings in colord, libX11, libwayland-client and
>> -server, and more. However, I
On Dec 20, 2012, at 10:50 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
>
> Am 20.12.2012 18:40, schrieb Nicolas Mailhot:
>>
>> Le Mer 19 décembre 2012 20:46, Reindl Harald a écrit :
>>> the point is that optional features should never be a hard
>>> dependency - as example the colord crap pulls X11 deps on
>>>
Have you ever want to get your Amateur Radio License or Upgrade here is
your chance at Fudcon Lawrence.
For the Second NA Fudcon we are pleased to offer a ARRL Test Session on
Saturday Jan 19th 10am -2PM in Learned Hall University of Kansas
There is a $15 cost to take the exam. (This Fee goe
Am 20.12.2012 21:54, schrieb Richard Hughes:
> On 19 December 2012 19:46, Reindl Harald wrote:
>> as example the colord crap pulls X11 deps on
>> servers because you install Imagemagick which is a COMMANDLINE
>> tool in the first front
>
> It does? That's a bug if that's true. colord is the sim
Am 20.12.2012 18:40, schrieb Nicolas Mailhot:
>
> Le Mer 19 décembre 2012 20:46, Reindl Harald a écrit :
>> the point is that optional features should never be a hard
>> dependency - as example the colord crap pulls X11 deps on
>> servers because you install Imagemagick which is a COMMANDLINE
>>
On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 04:08:27PM -0500, Matthew Miller wrote:
> Anyway, it is true that there is some dep chain from installing ImageMagick
> on a bare server which brings in colord, libX11, libwayland-client and
> -server, and more. However, I don't think colord is to blame -- it just adds
> col
On Qua, 2012-12-19 at 08:05 +1000, Peter Hutterer wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 09:38:24PM +, Sérgio Basto wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > 1 - Here:
> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Input_device_configuration#system-setup-keyboard
> >
> > we need update this because:
> > Command system-setup-key
On Dec 20, 2012, at 10:41 AM, Nicolas Mailhot
wrote:
>
> Le Mer 19 décembre 2012 20:26, Chris Murphy a écrit :
>>
>>
>> If you have a b&w display and only b&w printers, then colord would still
>> enable something useful. But I suspect you have at least one color
>> display.
>
> colord is no
On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 08:54:19PM +, Richard Hughes wrote:
> > as example the colord crap pulls X11 deps on
> > servers because you install Imagemagick which is a COMMANDLINE
> > tool in the first front
> It does? That's a bug if that's true. colord is the simple mapping
> daemon and doesn't k
On 19 December 2012 19:46, Reindl Harald wrote:
> as example the colord crap pulls X11 deps on
> servers because you install Imagemagick which is a COMMANDLINE
> tool in the first front
It does? That's a bug if that's true. colord is the simple mapping
daemon and doesn't know anything about X. Fi
On Qui, 2012-12-20 at 20:16 +0100, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> IIRC, an anaconda bug already exists (don't remember the number, I do
> remember answering some questions Mismo asked about the Debian system
> there)
I need the number
Thanks ,
--
Sérgio M. B.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fed
2012/12/20 Charles Bennett
> Thanks for the redirect. I've taken it to the rpmfusion folks.
>
> ccb
>
> Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Jiri Moskovcak wrote:
> > - not sure if this is the right ml
>
> It's not. ;-)
>
> > kmod-nvidia is definitely not in the official Fedora repos, it's in
> > rpmfusion
>
Dear all,
I've submitted an update to LCM for EL5 and EL6:
* https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/lcm-0.9.2-1.el5
* https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/lcm-0.9.2-1.el6
While 0.9.2 doesn't bring any 'proffit' to Linux users, 0.9.1 does, specially:
- add --flush-interval option to perio
Le Jeu 20 décembre 2012 20:04, Bill Nottingham a écrit :
> Nicolas Mailhot (nicolas.mail...@laposte.net) said:
>> If you really want to support console keyboard layouts in systemd, you
>> need to start generating console layouts from xkb-config, not adopt the
>> old anaconda mapping bandaid
>
> Th
On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 02:28:48PM +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 01:54:57AM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 11:56:36PM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> >
> > > Yuck! I really don't see why we should be granting this type of
> > > exceptions.
> >
Nicolas Mailhot (nicolas.mail...@laposte.net) said:
> If you really want to support console keyboard layouts in systemd, you
> need to start generating console layouts from xkb-config, not adopt the
> old anaconda mapping bandaid
There's already a bug for this, but the runtime perl dependencies i
Le Jeu 20 décembre 2012 19:32, Rahul Sundaram a écrit :
> Hi,
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 1:05 PM, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
>
>>
>> If you really want to support console keyboard layouts in systemd, you
>> need to start generating console layouts from xkb-config, not adopt the
>> old anaconda map
Hi,
On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 1:05 PM, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
>
> If you really want to support console keyboard layouts in systemd, you
> need to start generating console layouts from xkb-config, not adopt the
> old anaconda mapping bandaid
>
Can you file a bug report against Anaconda and syst
Le Mer 19 décembre 2012 22:57, Lennart Poettering a écrit :
> On Mon, 03.12.12 10:04, Vratislav Podzimek (vpodz...@redhat.com) wrote:
>
>> The "conversion" (as systemd-localed calls it) works really poorly also
>> for the Czech keymaps/layouts. 'cz' X11 layout is "converted" to
>> 'cz-lat2' which
Le Mer 19 décembre 2012 20:26, Chris Murphy a écrit :
>
> On Dec 19, 2012, at 12:05 PM, Reindl Harald
> wrote:
>
>>
>> and i would file a bug if something pulls samba-client as
>> dependency - there are still WAY too much useless dependencies
>> like colord and i refuse to accept more of them!
>
Le Mer 19 décembre 2012 20:46, Reindl Harald a écrit :
>
>
> Am 19.12.2012 20:26, schrieb Chris Murphy:
>>
>> On Dec 19, 2012, at 12:05 PM, Reindl Harald
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> and i would file a bug if something pulls samba-client as
>>> dependency - there are still WAY too much useless dependenci
Le Jeu 20 décembre 2012 02:54, Matthew Garrett a écrit :
> On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 11:56:36PM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>
>> Yuck! I really don't see why we should be granting this type of
>> exceptions.
>> libexec and share exist for a reason. Helper binaries need to be in
>> libexec,
>> unit fi
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865623
--- Comment #3 from Fedora Update System ---
perl-AnyEvent-XMPP-0.53-1.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 stable
repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.
--
You are receiving this mai
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865623
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ON_QA |CLOSED
Re
On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 11:56 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Tomas Mraz wrote:
>> * AGREED: 1. systemd is granted an exception to put helper
>> applications in /usr/lib/systemd (t8m, 19:03:17)
>> * AGREED: 2. the systemd unit files of all the packages are granted an
>> exception to be unde
On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 02:09:19PM -0700, Orion Poplawski wrote:
> On 12/19/2012 12:30 PM, Neil Horman wrote:
> >Hey all-
> > I've got this package I'm trying to get reviewed:
> >https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=884291
> >
> >Will to swap for it if anyone is interested.
>
>
> How c
On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 10:58:39PM +0100, Mario Blättermann wrote:
> Am Mittwoch, 19. Dezember 2012, 14:30:53 schrieb Neil Horman:
> > Hey all-
> > I've got this package I'm trying to get reviewed:
> > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=884291
> >
> > Will to swap for it if anyone is
On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 01:54:57AM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 11:56:36PM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>
> > Yuck! I really don't see why we should be granting this type of exceptions.
> > libexec and share exist for a reason. Helper binaries need to be in
> > libexec,
commit f3facd08c6858656bd55b9873f924c9602ab1078
Author: Petr Šabata
Date: Thu Dec 20 14:53:59 2012 +0100
1.402 bump
.gitignore |1 +
perl-SQL-Statement.spec |7 +--
sources |2 +-
3 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
---
diff --git
Compose started at Thu Dec 20 09:17:45 UTC 2012
Broken deps for x86_64
--
[python-fedmsg-meta-fedora-infrastructure]
python-fedmsg-meta-fedora-infrastructure-0.0.3-1.fc18.noarch requires
fedmsg >= 0:0.6.1
Broken deps for i386
Hi everybody,
According to Ruby 2.0 release schedule:
- code freeze: 23 Dec.
- 2.0.0-rc1 release: 1W Jan. (expected)
- 2.0.0-rc2 release: 1W Feb. (expected)
- 2.0.0-p0 release: 24 Feb.
the official release date is quickly approaching. Therefore, I would
like to update you about current
Thanks Andreas! Very interesting indeed!
Mario
On 18 December 2012 20:28, Andreas Tille wrote:
> Hi Mario,
>
> On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 06:04:24PM +0100, Mario Ceresa wrote:
>> Hi, I'm packaging OpenIGTLink (http://openigtlink.org/) and I'd like
>> to swap reviews:
>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 12/20/2012 12:04 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-12-20 at 00:06 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>> Adam Williamson wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 2012-12-19 at 18:30 +0100, Miloslav Trma? wrote:
Probably
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Feature
71 matches
Mail list logo
