On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 2:19 AM, Adam Williamson
wrote:
> On Mon, 2016-02-01 at 15:02 -0600, Richard Shaw wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 2:58 PM, Yaakov Selkowitz > > wrote:
>> > On 2016-02-01 07:45, Adam Williamson wrote:
>> > > Hi, folks. Looks like there was an unannounced soname bump in
>> >
On Mon, 2016-02-01 at 15:02 -0600, Richard Shaw wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 2:58 PM, Yaakov Selkowitz > wrote:
> > On 2016-02-01 07:45, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > > Hi, folks. Looks like there was an unannounced soname bump in
> > > Rawhide
> > > today: libpsl.so.0 -> libpsl.so.5, in package
On 02/02/16 07:00, Michael J Gruber wrote:
Rex Dieter venit, vidit, dixit 18.01.2016 15:00:
In response to recent additions to default $RPM_OPT_FLAGS that depend on
redhat-rpm-config to be present, and in response to bug
http://bugzilla.redhat.com/1279265
Qt4's qmake will no longer inject $RPM_
Rex Dieter venit, vidit, dixit 18.01.2016 15:00:
> In response to recent additions to default $RPM_OPT_FLAGS that depend on
> redhat-rpm-config to be present, and in response to bug
> http://bugzilla.redhat.com/1279265
>
> Qt4's qmake will no longer inject $RPM_OPT_FLAGS any more, starting with
>
> This is the hazard of using %{_libdir}/*.so.* in %files. Is there any
> reason why such a syntax should NOT be formally discouraged in the
> packaging guidelines?
>
It hasn't been actively discouraged, and I have, in fact seen it encouraged
during packa
> "RC" == Remi Collet writes:
RC> Please, don't change any of my packages.
Could you perhaps explain your definition of "my" in that sentence? I'm
kind of curious as to why someone might think that any package is the
distribution is "theirs" as opposed to "Fedora's".
- J<
--
devel mailing
The following packages are orphaned and will be retired when they
are orphaned for six weeks, unless someone adopts them. If you know for sure
that the package should be retired, please do so now with a proper reason:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_remove_a_package_at_end_of_life
Note: If y
The following packages are orphaned and will be retired when they
are orphaned for six weeks, unless someone adopts them. If you know for sure
that the package should be retired, please do so now with a proper reason:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_remove_a_package_at_end_of_life
Note: If y
* Howard Chu:
> 5) BerkeleyDB lives under a licensing cloud. Since 2008 Oracle
> lawyers were contacting commercial OpenLDAP users and demanding
> license fees from them, even though BerkeleyDB is expressly licensed
> for free use in open source software (such as OpenLDAP).
At least the new licen
On Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 2:58 PM, Yaakov Selkowitz
wrote:
> On 2016-02-01 07:45, Adam Williamson wrote:
>
>> Hi, folks. Looks like there was an unannounced soname bump in Rawhide
>> today: libpsl.so.0 -> libpsl.so.5, in package libpsl. Looks like the
>> only other package using that lib is wget, so
On 2016-02-01 07:45, Adam Williamson wrote:
Hi, folks. Looks like there was an unannounced soname bump in Rawhide
today: libpsl.so.0 -> libpsl.so.5, in package libpsl. Looks like the
only other package using that lib is wget, so that needs rebuilding.
I'll try a straight rebuild, if that doesn't
Chris Adams cmadams.net> writes:
>
> Once upon a time, Neal Gompa gmail.com> said:
> > My understanding of the problem is that it's less about the "doubts
> > about its future" and more about the fact Oracle inexplicably changed
> > the license with BDB 6.x to AGPLv3. Berkley DB 5.3 is old, and
Change in package status over the last 168 hours
11 packages were orphaned
-
d-feet [el6] was orphaned by kevin
A powerful D-Bus Debugger
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/d-feet
edsadmin [f23, f22, mast
On Sun, Jan 31, 2016 at 12:45:30AM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> I don't think working software (even if not perfect, but what software is?)
> should be dropped from the distribution like that, ESPECIALLY for software
> like this that involves user data (programs in this case). You should at
> le
Once upon a time, Neal Gompa said:
> My understanding of the problem is that it's less about the "doubts
> about its future" and more about the fact Oracle inexplicably changed
> the license with BDB 6.x to AGPLv3. Berkley DB 5.3 is old, and no one
> has forked it and maintained it.
To me, it see
On 02/01/2016 02:55 PM, Petr Spacek wrote:
> For the wider audience, some more information about LMDB backend for RPM can
> be found in:
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1086784
>
> In short:
> - Maximum database size is just "sanity limit" set by application. It can be
> hunderds of
On 1.2.2016 12:05, Florian Weimer wrote:
> On 01/31/2016 04:17 PM, Jonathan Underwood wrote:
>> On 29 Jan 2016 10:03 pm, "Richard W.M. Jones" wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> FWIW I found the new database backend (not mentioned anywhere in the
>>> original submission). It is here:
>>>
>>> http://rpm.org/gitw
On Mon, 2016-02-01 at 14:40 +0100, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Mon, 2016-02-01 at 12:39 +, Fedora compose checker wrote:
> > Missing expected images:
> >
> > Cloud disk raw i386
> > Cloud_atomic disk raw x86_64
> > Generic boot x86_64
> > Workstation live x86_64
> > Workstation live i386
> > G
Hi, folks. Looks like there was an unannounced soname bump in Rawhide
today: libpsl.so.0 -> libpsl.so.5, in package libpsl. Looks like the
only other package using that lib is wget, so that needs rebuilding.
I'll try a straight rebuild, if that doesn't work I'll contact the
maintainer.
--
Adam Wil
On Mon, 2016-02-01 at 12:39 +, Fedora compose checker wrote:
> Missing expected images:
>
> Cloud disk raw i386
> Cloud_atomic disk raw x86_64
> Generic boot x86_64
> Workstation live x86_64
> Workstation live i386
> Generic boot i386
> Kde disk raw armhfp
> Cloud disk raw x86_64
Looks like a
On 1. 2. 2016 at 12:14:18, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 01, 2016 at 12:51:47PM +0100, Jan Zelený wrote:
> > On 1. 2. 2016 at 09:59:23, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> > > On Mon, Feb 01, 2016 at 09:44:29AM +0100, Jan Zelený wrote:
> > > > On 29. 1. 2016 at 22:03:00, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
Missing expected images:
Cloud disk raw i386
Cloud_atomic disk raw x86_64
Generic boot x86_64
Workstation live x86_64
Workstation live i386
Generic boot i386
Kde disk raw armhfp
Cloud disk raw x86_64
No images in this compose but not Rawhide 20160131
Images in Rawhide 20160131 but not this:
Sec
On Mon, Feb 01, 2016 at 12:51:47PM +0100, Jan Zelený wrote:
> On 1. 2. 2016 at 09:59:23, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 01, 2016 at 09:44:29AM +0100, Jan Zelený wrote:
> > > On 29. 1. 2016 at 22:03:00, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> > > > FWIW I found the new database backend (not mentioned
On 29 January 2016 at 18:51, Matthew Miller wrote:
> Several years ago, I packaged up Scratch 1.4 -- the visual programming
> language for kids. However, it never really worked perfectly (it's not
> 64 bit clean) and upstream for this line is dead (as Scratch 2.0 is
> based on Adobe Air -- and hop
On 1. 2. 2016 at 09:59:23, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 01, 2016 at 09:44:29AM +0100, Jan Zelený wrote:
> > On 29. 1. 2016 at 22:03:00, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> > > FWIW I found the new database backend (not mentioned anywhere in the
> > >
> > > original submission). It is here:
> >
On Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 1:36 PM, Jonathan Wakely
wrote:
>
> Insisting that feature requests provide an implementation is a good
> way to ensure nobody bothers asking for improvements to a tool.
And encouraging filing RFE's for which there is no implementor
resources in sight is a good way to frust
On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 02:30:36PM +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 12:36:24PM +0100, Petr Šabata wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 04:34:55PM -0600, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
> > perl-Affix-Infix2Postfix (steve, psabata)
> > perl-Algorithm-IncludeExclude (iarn
On 30/01/16 09:54 +0200, Ville Skyttä wrote:
On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 2:41 PM, Jonathan Wakely
wrote:
I've seen a few spec files with content like this:
%configure --disable-static --with-imagemagick --with-magickpp \
--without-libavcodec
CPPFLAGS='-DMagickLib=MagickCore -I/usr/i
On Mon, Feb 01, 2016 at 10:26:13AM +0100, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> I still use this program. And it has no glitches on 32 arch. Until there is
> new open source version of Scratch or
> someone package Snap! (and add there some costumes and backgrounds) then the
> Scratch is still the best tool.
>
Hey all! I posted this over on the Fedora Council Discus list, but it's
really relevant across the project. Rather than splitting into a bunch
of crazy cross-posts, I'd love to hear your input at
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/council-disc...@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/B6XWQTXIA
On 01/31/2016 04:17 PM, Jonathan Underwood wrote:
> On 29 Jan 2016 10:03 pm, "Richard W.M. Jones" wrote:
>>
>>
>> FWIW I found the new database backend (not mentioned anywhere in the
>> original submission). It is here:
>>
>> http://rpm.org/gitweb?p=rpm.git;a=tree;f=lib/backend/ndb
>>
>> Since
On 02/01/2016 11:43 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 01, 2016 at 11:39:33AM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
>> On 02/01/2016 11:26 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>>> On Mon, Feb 01, 2016 at 11:13:08AM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
On 02/01/2016 10:59 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>>
On Mon, Feb 01, 2016 at 11:39:33AM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> On 02/01/2016 11:26 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 01, 2016 at 11:13:08AM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> >> On 02/01/2016 10:59 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> >>
> >>> Even if the RPM database is only accessed via lib
On 02/01/2016 11:26 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 01, 2016 at 11:13:08AM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
>> On 02/01/2016 10:59 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>>
>>> Even if the RPM database is only accessed via librpm, it's still
>>> important that the most central database present on ev
On Mon, Feb 01, 2016 at 10:26:34AM +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 01, 2016 at 11:13:08AM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> > On 02/01/2016 10:59 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> >
> > > Even if the RPM database is only accessed via librpm, it's still
> > > important that the most centr
On Mon, Feb 01, 2016 at 11:13:08AM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> On 02/01/2016 10:59 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>
> > Even if the RPM database is only accessed via librpm, it's still
> > important that the most central database present on every Fedora
> > system is reliable, well-tested and fl
On 02/01/2016 10:59 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> Even if the RPM database is only accessed via librpm, it's still
> important that the most central database present on every Fedora
> system is reliable, well-tested and flexible. Sqlite is a highly
> regarded piece of software, which runs on bi
On Mon, Feb 01, 2016 at 09:44:29AM +0100, Jan Zelený wrote:
> On 29. 1. 2016 at 22:03:00, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> > FWIW I found the new database backend (not mentioned anywhere in the
> > original submission). It is here:
> >
> > http://rpm.org/gitweb?p=rpm.git;a=tree;f=lib/backend/ndb
> >
Dne 29.1.2016 v 19:51 Matthew Miller napsal(a):
> I'd like to let go of ownership of the package, and unless someone else
> really wants to invest time into it, I think retiring it completely is
> the way to go.
I still use this program. And it has no glitches on 32 arch. Until there is new
open
On 29. 1. 2016 at 22:03:00, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> FWIW I found the new database backend (not mentioned anywhere in the
> original submission). It is here:
>
> http://rpm.org/gitweb?p=rpm.git;a=tree;f=lib/backend/ndb
>
> Since this change has (rashly) been approved by FESCO, I guess we're
40 matches
Mail list logo
