tktray going from MIT to BSD license

The subject says it all. Regards, Milos -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

tktray going from MIT to BSD license

The subject says it all. Regards, Milos -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: preupgrade-cli

On 5.5.2010 12:17, Dan Horák wrote: > >> Does anyone still use preupgrade-cli or can I remove it from the next >> upstream release? If anyone is that interested in it, could you >> possibly help fix it up and maintain it? Thanks. > > I use it quite regularly for updating my machines +1 but don't

Re: broken desktop files

Hi Rudolf, a usual request: could you repost including the maintainer names? Thank you, Milos Jakubicek On 2.5.2010 23:30, Rudolf Kastl wrote: > Hello, > > i did a desktop-file-validate on all .desktop files in the current > rawhide distro (note rpmfusion too). > > here is

Re: Orphaning my packages

On 29.4.2010 10:27, Rafał Psota wrote: > htop -- Interactive process viewer I'll take htop, but you have to release ownership in the pkgdb so that I can take it. Regards, Milos -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: [fedora-java] Orphaning of Java packages I own

do it as well. >> > Hi Mario, I've grabbed antlr (since I already comaintain antlr3 which depends on antlr) and would be glad if you request comaintainership! Regards, Milos Jakubicek -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: Expect more positive bodhi karma / check karma automatism

On 6.3.2010 23:21, Till Maas wrote: > Good news everyone, > > you can probably expect to receive more positive bodhi karma for your > updates in the future (or you already got unexpected much), because > there is now a script called 'fedora-easy-karma'[0], that makes > providing feedback a lot easi

Re: No lzma sdk in fedora

On 12.2.2010 19:17, Chen Lei wrote: lzma itself already replaced by xz-lzma-compat several months ago. xz-lzma-compat provides lzma=5. Am I dumb, oh yes of course, this is since the xz review, sorry for confusion! Well then we are safe to go. Milos -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedorap

Re: No lzma sdk in fedora

PackageKit-glib-0:0.4.6-8.fc11.i586 libarchive-devel-0:2.6.2-1.fc11.i586 Updating libarchive to the F12 only affects a few stuffs(soname unchanged). ??2010-02-13 01:02:56??"Milos Jakubicek" mailto:xja...@fi.muni.cz>> ?? Hi Chen, On 12.2.2010 12:50, Chen Lei

Re: No lzma sdk in fedora

Hi Chen, On 12.2.2010 12:50, Chen Lei wrote: > I realized from "http://tukaani.org/xz/"; the core of the xz utils > compression code is based on LZMA SDK , but > it has been modified quite a lot to be suitable for XZ Utils. > So I think we should ship lzma sdk for fedor

Re: LD Changes To Implicit DSO Linking Update

On 8.2.2010 23:37, Roland Grunberg wrote: > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/DSOLinkBugs 281 packages? Wov! (That's after the most often occurring problems have been already resolved, am I right?) + let's say 300 "regular" FTBFS bugs -- the F13 mass rebuild will be really great... > > Thank-Yo

Re: Would you use a programming language with missing features?

On 31.1.2010 01:24, Paulo Cavalcanti wrote: > > Anyway, the discussion was good and maybe it is useful to other people too. > :) Well, really: if you want to change something, file the bugreport, or get in touch with relevant maintainers. I'm not a tcl/tk/python expert, but if you think that yo

Re: Would you use a programming language with missing features?

On 30.1.2010 14:29, Paulo Cavalcanti wrote: > https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2009-August/msg00462.html > > I am not saying the points raised in the above link are not important, but > the solution is pretty obvious to me. Obviously it isn't if you looked at the BZ link in the a

Re: how to handle a gui- and non-gui-version of the same library/soname

On 18.1.2010 13:17, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 01/17/2010 09:04 AM, Milos Jakubicek wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> is there any good way how to handle the situation described at >> >> https://

how to handle a gui- and non-gui-version of the same library/soname

Hi all, is there any good way how to handle the situation described at https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=528524 ? I.e. you have a single library (single soname) which can be compiled with or without GUI support (with different ABI) -- and we'd like to have both of them, of course --

Re: Candidate packages for removal due to FTBFS, implications

On 15.1.2010 07:00, Matt Domsch wrote: > synce-kde-0.9.1-4.fc11.src.rpm > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=539195 Synce-kde should be EOL'd already a long time (it has been replaced by something else, can't remember details unfortunately anymore) -- I spoke about this with the maint

Re: Change to DSO-linking semantics of the compiler

On 12.1.2010 01:14, Kevin Kofler wrote: > semantics) hitting so many packages is a very bad idea and that it's > unrealistic to get them all fixed for F13. + 1...speaking as somebody who's fixed dozens of packages after the F11 and F12 mass rebuilds and looking at the loong list referenced a

Re: Change to DSO-linking semantics of the compiler

On 11.1.2010 19:45, Charley Wang wrote: > Hi Fedora Developers, > > This is a quick announcement of the proposed change to DSO linking > (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/ChangeInImplicitDSOLinking). > > The change will force explicit declaration of links rather than implicitly > detecting l