[Test-Announce] Fedora 19 Alpha Release Candidate 2 (RC2) Available Now!

*IMPORTANT*: Same images as with 19 Alpha TC3 through RC1 are over their size targets (all DVDs and Lives with the exception of Live KDE and Live SoaS). As per the Fedora 19 schedule [1], Fedora 19 Alpha Release Candidate 2 (RC2) is now available for testing. Content information, including changes

Re: Autoconf in rawhide broken?

On Tue, 9 Apr 2013 17:37:32 -0500 Richard Shaw wrote: > On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 4:57 PM, Orion Poplawski > wrote: > > > perl Carp was broken for a while - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/** > > show_bug.cgi?id=924938 > > You might need to go backwa

Re: Autoconf in rawhide broken?

On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 4:57 PM, Orion Poplawski wrote: > perl Carp was broken for a while - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/** > show_bug.cgi?id=924938 > You might need to go backwards (distro-sync) > Don't really help me for koji though... :) Or

Re: Autoconf in rawhide broken?

On 04/09/2013 01:39 PM, Richard Shaw wrote: I was trying to do a test build for aarch64 by adding autoreconf to the spec file. I was getting an error that it doesn't exist. When I tried to mock chroot for Rawhide I got the following: # autoreconf Can't locate Carp.pm in @INC (@INC contains: /us

Re: Autoconf in rawhide broken?

On Ter, 2013-04-09 at 22:09 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote: > On Tue, 9 Apr 2013 14:39:56 -0500, Richard Shaw wrote: > > > I was trying to do a test build for aarch64 by adding autoreconf to the > > spec file. I was getting an error that it doesn't exist. > > The error output tells you something

Re: Autoconf in rawhide broken?

On Tue, 9 Apr 2013 14:39:56 -0500, Richard Shaw wrote: > I was trying to do a test build for aarch64 by adding autoreconf to the > spec file. I was getting an error that it doesn't exist. The error output tells you something different: > When I tried to mock chroot for Rawhide I got the followin

[perl-Devel-GlobalDestruction-XS] Created tag perl-Devel-GlobalDestruction-XS-0.01-3.fc20

The lightweight tag 'perl-Devel-GlobalDestruction-XS-0.01-3.fc20' was created pointing to: 84d6cc4... Drop redundant explicit dependency on perl(XSLoader) (#9284 -- Fedora Extras Perl SIG http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl perl-devel mailing list perl-de...@lists.fedoraproject.or

[perl-Devel-GlobalDestruction-XS] Created tag perl-Devel-GlobalDestruction-XS-0.01-3.fc18

The lightweight tag 'perl-Devel-GlobalDestruction-XS-0.01-3.fc18' was created pointing to: 84d6cc4... Drop redundant explicit dependency on perl(XSLoader) (#9284 -- Fedora Extras Perl SIG http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl perl-devel mailing list perl-de...@lists.fedoraproject.or

[perl-Devel-GlobalDestruction-XS] Created tag perl-Devel-GlobalDestruction-XS-0.01-3.fc19

The lightweight tag 'perl-Devel-GlobalDestruction-XS-0.01-3.fc19' was created pointing to: 84d6cc4... Drop redundant explicit dependency on perl(XSLoader) (#9284 -- Fedora Extras Perl SIG http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl perl-devel mailing list perl-de...@lists.fedoraproject.or

[perl-Devel-GlobalDestruction-XS] Created tag perl-Devel-GlobalDestruction-XS-0.01-3.fc17

The lightweight tag 'perl-Devel-GlobalDestruction-XS-0.01-3.fc17' was created pointing to: 84d6cc4... Drop redundant explicit dependency on perl(XSLoader) (#9284 -- Fedora Extras Perl SIG http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl perl-devel mailing list perl-de...@lists.fedoraproject.or

[perl-Devel-GlobalDestruction-XS] Created tag perl-Devel-GlobalDestruction-XS-0.01-3.el6

The lightweight tag 'perl-Devel-GlobalDestruction-XS-0.01-3.el6' was created pointing to: 84d6cc4... Drop redundant explicit dependency on perl(XSLoader) (#9284 -- Fedora Extras Perl SIG http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl perl-devel mailing list perl-de...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[perl-Devel-GlobalDestruction-XS] Created tag perl-Devel-GlobalDestruction-XS-0.01-3.el5

The lightweight tag 'perl-Devel-GlobalDestruction-XS-0.01-3.el5' was created pointing to: 84d6cc4... Drop redundant explicit dependency on perl(XSLoader) (#9284 -- Fedora Extras Perl SIG http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl perl-devel mailing list perl-de...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Autoconf in rawhide broken?

I was trying to do a test build for aarch64 by adding autoreconf to the spec file. I was getting an error that it doesn't exist. When I tried to mock chroot for Rawhide I got the following: # autoreconf Can't locate Carp.pm in @INC (@INC contains: /usr/share/autoconf /usr/local/lib64/perl5 /usr/l

Re: Keeping old versions of packages

On Tuesday 09 April 2013 16:02:14 Richard Hughes wrote: > now for F18 are really not important at all. Spec file fixups, new > versions without bugfixes, updated artwork; that can all wait until a > certain point in the month. Security-critical updates are already tagged as such, aren't they? So u

Re: [Test-Announce] Fedora 19 Alpha Release Candidate 1 (RC1) Available Now!

On 09/04/13 10:41 AM, Andreas Tunek wrote: I tried the live image on two computers and could not get into GDM. Is this a known bug or should I report it? It's hard to tell with no more details than that, but there are no known general showstopper bugs in the GDM/GNOME path of RC1, no. there's

Re: Keeping old versions of packages

Once upon a time, Bill Nottingham said: > So, needless to say, I'd suggest anyone interested in this to look at option > #3. Note that enabling something like that on rawhide would have a large > effect on the repository creation time - there's only so many ways to speed > up scanning across 5

Re: [Test-Announce] Fedora 19 Alpha Release Candidate 1 (RC1) Available Now!

2013/4/9 Andre Robatino > *IMPORTANT*: Same images as with 19 Alpha TC3, TC4, and TC5 are over > their size targets (all DVDs and Lives with the exception of Live KDE > and Live SoaS). > > As per the Fedora 19 schedule [1], Fedora 19 Alpha Release Candidate 1 > (RC1) is now available for testing.

[Test-Announce] L10N Desktop testing day for Fedora 19 - 13/04/11

Hello everyone, We are glad to announce that the L10N Test day for Fedora 19 is scheduled for 11th April (Thursday) [1]. Translators all around the world are kindly invited to test their languages and file bugs if necessary, thus contributing to make the Fedora desktop one of the best deskto

Re: Self Introduction

Hi On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 12:59 PM, Ravindra Kumar wrote: > Thanks Rahul. > > Given that Simone has already accepted existing bug for review, I will > create a new bug if he is ok with that. > > Does that sound ok? > Sure. That was just FYI since some of the report generating scripts assumes

Re: Self Introduction

Thanks Rahul. Given that Simone has already accepted existing bug for review, I will create a new bug if he is ok with that. Does that sound ok? Thanks, Ravindra - Original Message - From: "Rahul Sundaram" To: "Development discussions related to Fedora" Sent: Tuesday, April 9

Re: Keeping old versions of packages

On Tue, 9 Apr 2013 11:18:54 -0500 Bruno Wolff III wrote: > On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 00:05:45 +0800, >Mathieu Bridon wrote: > >The current behaviour would be obtained by setting it to 1, and > >setting it to 2 would already be a positive change as it would allow > >downgrading a package if t

Re: Keeping old versions of packages

On Wednesday, April 10, 2013 12:09 AM, Matthew Miller wrote: On Tue, Apr 09, 2013 at 05:16:45PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote: I've heard of a plan in development about batching non-critical updates into monthly sets. It seems like these two things could go together I'm sorry, but that is a very b

Re: Keeping old versions of packages

On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 00:05:45 +0800, Mathieu Bridon wrote: The current behaviour would be obtained by setting it to 1, and setting it to 2 would already be a positive change as it would allow downgrading a package if the update went wrong. I don't think that is really what you want eithe

[389-devel] New Branch - 389-ds-base-1.3.1

The new 389-ds-base-1.3.1 branch has been created. Commits for 1.3.1 will have to be checked into master first, then cherry-picked to 1.3.1 -- 389-devel mailing list 389-de...@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/389-devel

Re: Keeping old versions of packages

On Tue, 2013-04-09 at 17:16 +0200, Hans de Goede wrote: > Hi, > > Am 09.04.2013 14:27, schrieb Matthew Miller: > > On Tue, Apr 09, 2013 at 10:10:26AM +0100, Richard Hughes wrote: > >> I'm wondering what the interest would be in keeping packages > >> referenced in metadata on the mirrors for say a

Re: Keeping old versions of packages

On Tue, Apr 09, 2013 at 05:16:45PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote: > >I've heard of a plan in development about batching non-critical updates into > >monthly sets. It seems like these two things could go together > I'm sorry, but that is a very bad idea. When users report bugs, and I mean > real bugs h

Re: Keeping old versions of packages

On Tuesday, April 09, 2013 11:52 PM, Bill Nottingham wrote: If you wanted to keep more versions on the mirrors, you have the following options: 1) Have mash create everything, and then run a script that prunes versions older than X, and re-runs createrepo. [... snip ...] 2) Have mash try and i

Re: Keeping old versions of packages

Richard Hughes (hughsi...@gmail.com) said: > Using PackageKit and yum on the command line is often painful as we > have to always download metadata unless it's less than a few hours > old. Being able to update the metadata once a week would be awesome > (with the possible exception of security upd

Re: MySQL and MariaDB in Fedora

On Mon, 08 Apr 2013 09:38:53 +0200 Honza Horak wrote: ...snip... > > How do we get push access to the git repo? It would be great to get > > 5.6 in before the test day on April 30. > > To get involved, just follow standard process as described on Fedora > wiki: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/

[perl-Getopt-Long] Import

commit a4ab06b5cbfcde1ccbc321ea888233ceb9f34f9d Author: Petr Písař Date: Tue Apr 9 17:33:40 2013 +0200 Import .gitignore|1 + perl-Getopt-Long.spec | 59 + sources |1 + 3 files changed, 61 insertions(+),

File Getopt-Long-2.39.tar.gz uploaded to lookaside cache by ppisar

A file has been added to the lookaside cache for perl-Getopt-Long: 84c8643de29faade9491c56d72afdba0 Getopt-Long-2.39.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/mailm

Re: Self Introduction

Hi On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 1:59 AM, Ravindra Kumar wrote: > Hi all, > > I work for VMware. My Fedora account name is "ravindrakumar". > > I would like to contribute open-vm-tools package to ongoing development of > Fedora 19. For more details about open-vm-tools project, please refer > http://ope

[perl] Sub-package Sys-Syslog

commit b177230d9a1d764faf4402a4a1e29b16818b2392 Author: Petr Písař Date: Tue Apr 9 16:44:54 2013 +0200 Sub-package Sys-Syslog perl.spec | 31 +-- 1 files changed, 29 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) --- diff --git a/perl.spec b/perl.spec index 4964763..896c4e7 1

Re: Keeping old versions of packages

On 9 April 2013 16:16, Hans de Goede wrote: > them new packages after upstream bug-fix releases. Lumping these all > together in a single day in the month just does not feel like a Fedora thing > to do. You can't QA a trickle. If packages are small and self-contained then sure, it might work, bu

Re: Keeping old versions of packages

Hi, Am 09.04.2013 14:27, schrieb Matthew Miller: On Tue, Apr 09, 2013 at 10:10:26AM +0100, Richard Hughes wrote: I'm wondering what the interest would be in keeping packages referenced in metadata on the mirrors for say a month? We'd probably need a separate fedora-security repo too that's desi

Re: Keeping old versions of packages

On 9 April 2013 13:48, Reindl Harald wrote: > if i want monthly pacthdays i use Microsoft or Oracle Not at all. Patchdays make perfect sense for planning reboots/downtime/maintenance and that kind of thing. > you can hardly classify which bug is for which user critical! Sure you can, Red Hat do

Re: Keeping old versions of packages

Am 09.04.2013 14:27, schrieb Matthew Miller: > On Tue, Apr 09, 2013 at 10:10:26AM +0100, Richard Hughes wrote: >> I'm wondering what the interest would be in keeping packages >> referenced in metadata on the mirrors for say a month? We'd probably >> need a separate fedora-security repo too that's

Re: Keeping old versions of packages

Am 09.04.2013 11:10, schrieb Richard Hughes: > Using PackageKit and yum on the command line is often painful as we > have to always download metadata unless it's less than a few hours > old. Being able to update the metadata once a week would be awesome > (with the possible exception of security

Re: Weird broken deps.

On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 8:00 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote: > > On Mon, 8 Apr 2013 19:51:15 +0300, Gilboa Davara wrote: > > > Hello all, > > > > Can anyone help me make sense of the following broken-dep message? > > > > springlobby has broken dependencies in the rawhide tree: > > On i386: > >

Re: Fedora 19 Alpha status: blockers, karma requests etc

- Original Message - > Hi folks! Time for the first blocker status mail of the Fedora 19 cycle. > The tl;dr summary: Hi Adam, thanks for summary. Updates follows. > Input needed from blocker voters and developers on: > > * https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=947142 Three more ar

Re: what is "initramfs-0-rescue" in F19?

> /etc/kernel/postinst.d/* scripts are called by new-kernel-pkg, which is called > in the kernel.spec, when you install a kernel. > > new-kernel-pkg uses grubby to generate a grub config. > grub2-mkconfig destroys anything grubby has setup. > > Well, we could patch grub2-mkconfig to recognize the

Re: Keeping old versions of packages

On Tue, Apr 09, 2013 at 02:48:40PM +0200, Reindl Harald wrote: > depends often on the workload and currect jobs and the cirtical > apllication wheer a bug will hurt you much may change from project > to project As I understand it, you'll be able to opt for an all-updates track. In fact, that will

Re: Keeping old versions of packages

On Tue, Apr 09, 2013 at 10:10:26AM +0100, Richard Hughes wrote: > I'm wondering what the interest would be in keeping packages > referenced in metadata on the mirrors for say a month? We'd probably > need a separate fedora-security repo too that's designed to be kept > small enough so that metadata

F-19 Branched report: 20130409 changes

Compose started at Tue Apr 9 09:15:14 UTC 2013 Broken deps for x86_64 -- [aeolus-conductor] aeolus-conductor-0.10.6-2.fc19.noarch requires ruby(abi) = 0:1.9.1 [alexandria] alexandria-0.6.9-4.fc19.noarch requires ruby(abi) >=

Re: Keeping old versions of packages

On 9 April 2013 10:21, Reindl Harald wrote: > metadata_expire=7d From a package manager point of view, this happens: 1 check expire timeout, all okay 2 depsolve update set 3 download 4 package not found! 5 download needed metadata based on some heuristic 6 goto 2 Richard -- devel mailing list

Keeping old versions of packages

Using PackageKit and yum on the command line is often painful as we have to always download metadata unless it's less than a few hours old. Being able to update the metadata once a week would be awesome (with the possible exception of security updates) so that we could schedule the 20Mb+ metadata u

Re: what is "initramfs-0-rescue" in F19?

Am 09.04.2013 00:00, schrieb Jeffrey Bastian: > On Mon, Apr 08, 2013 at 04:03:47PM -0500, Jeffrey Bastian wrote: >> I removed my initramfs-0-rescue-* file because I didn't know what it was >> and no rpm claimed to own it. How do I get it back? I've tried running >> dracut with various options and