Re: No lzma sdk in fedora?

On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 10:39 PM, Chen Lei wrote: > Hi all, > I want to package a sofware using a bundled lzma sdk which fedora doesn't > have(http://7-zip.org/sdk.html). > Since  I realized no linux distribution containing lzma sdk yet, is using a > bundled library permitted under this condition,?

Re: ABRT unusable again

On 02/12/2010 03:15 AM, Nils Philippsen wrote: > On Wed, 2010-02-10 at 15:48 +0100, Denys Vlasenko wrote: >> On Sat, 2010-02-06 at 10:53 +, Leigh Scott wrote: >>> IMO ABRT isn't that useful as a lot of the reports don't include steps >>> to reproduce (I just close the bugs after a month if they

Re: documentation on Bugzilla bug lifecycle/developer procedures?

On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 10:42:04PM -0800, Eric Smith wrote: > Matt Domsch wrote: > > However, check if unifdef is really needed. The kernel team knew it > > was going to be orphaned, and said "that's OK, as the kernel tree has > > its own copy that's maintained there." or somesuch. If not, lettin

Re: ABRT unusable again

On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 03:15:39AM +0100, Nils Philippsen wrote: > What strikes me as very puzzling is why abrt has this humongous dialog > instead of leading the user step-by-step through this... I know you just > changed the UI in a stable release. But doing it twice is twice fun ;-), > so why n

Re: documentation on Bugzilla bug lifecycle/developer procedures?

On Fri, 2010-02-12 at 10:38 +0100, Till Maas wrote: > If you need/use it and want to maintain it, you are free to do so. If > the kernel team knows a better alternative that you should consider, > then the package should be retired instead of just orphaned and an > explanation about why it was reti

Re: No lzma sdk in fedora

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 fedora in parallel with xz utils and p7zip. Since xz utils are the successor to lzm

Re: No lzma sdk in fedora?

Bruno Wolff III wrote: > We have an out of date version that isn't getting updated upstream and > we have a replacement library that uses a different API but which can > probably do what you want with some wrappers. > > I have an interest in this as well as the development version of squashfs > to

Re: Update on packages violating the Static Library guidelines

On 01/29/2010 12:52 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote: > Bugzilla status for packages violating the Static Library guidelines: > > libdnet 556066 > libstatgrab 556075 Done! I'm sending a separate mail regarding syck - strange compile error :-/

Re: No lzma sdk in fedora

On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 19:50:52 +0800, 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 fedora in paralle

File Catalyst-View-Email-0.23.tar.gz uploaded to lookaside cache by iarnell

A file has been added to the lookaside cache for perl-Catalyst-View-Email: 08fc52c612bd133479f525c996b525bb Catalyst-View-Email-0.23.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.fedorap

rpms/perl-Catalyst-View-Email/devel .cvsignore, 1.4, 1.5 perl-Catalyst-View-Email.spec, 1.5, 1.6 sources, 1.4, 1.5

Author: iarnell Update of /cvs/pkgs/rpms/perl-Catalyst-View-Email/devel In directory cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com:/tmp/cvs-serv18015 Modified Files: .cvsignore perl-Catalyst-View-Email.spec sources Log Message: * Fri Feb 12 2010 Iain Arnell 0.23-1 - update to latest upstream version - no

man-db vs. man

Hiyas, according to the man-db[0] homepage all/most other major distributions use a more actively developed manpage suite called man-db, while we only ship this: http://primates.ximian.com/~flucifredi/man/ In a package of mine, "man -l" is used to create a plaintext version of the manpage, which s

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: documentation on Bugzilla bug lifecycle/developer procedures?

On Thu, 2010-02-11 at 17:36 -0800, Eric Smith wrote: > The unifdef package had become orphaned due to an FTBFS, > . I took it over, > updated it to the latest upstream code, verified that it builds with > Koji, and committed it. I'm not sure w

Re: No lzma sdk in fedora

On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 18:02:56 +0100, Milos Jakubicek wrote: > 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 l

rawhide report: 20100212 changes

Compose started at Fri Feb 12 08:15:07 UTC 2010 Broken deps for i386 -- PySolFC-cardsets-2.0-2.fc13.noarch requires PySolFC = 0:1.1 balsa-2.4.6-3.fc13.i686 requires libgmime-2.4.so.2 beagle-0.3.9-15.fc12.i686 requires

Re: ABRT unusable again

On Fri, 2010-02-12 at 10:42 +0100, Till Maas wrote: > On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 03:15:39AM +0100, Nils Philippsen wrote: > > > What strikes me as very puzzling is why abrt has this humongous dialog > > instead of leading the user step-by-step through this... I know you just > > changed the UI in a s

Re: No lzma sdk in fedora

In fact libarchive doesn't require lzma-libs any more in F12 and F13. For F11: repoquery --whatrequires libarchive.so.2 PackageKit-glib-0:0.4.9-1.fc11.i586 libarchive-0:2.6.2-1.fc11.i586 kdeutils-6:4.2.2-4.fc11.i586 PackageKit-glib-0:0.4.6-8.fc11.i586 libarchive-devel-0:2.6.2-1.fc11.i586 Updating

Re: No lzma sdk in fedora

Oh, I didn't really notice how your repoquery looks like before. Libarchive is ok, but there are others: >repoquery --whatrequires --alldeps lzma lzma-libs lzma-devel --enablerepo=rawhide rpm-build-0:4.7.1-6.fc12.x86_64 rpm-build-0:4.8.0-9.fc13.x86_64 man-0:1.6f-25.fc12.x86_64 autoarchive-0:0.1

Re: No lzma sdk in fedora

lzma itself already replaced by xz-lzma-compat several months ago. xz-lzma-compat provides lzma=5. 在2010-02-13?02:10:23，"Milos?Jakubicek"??写道： >Oh,?I?didn't?really?notice?how?your?repoquery?looks?like?before. >Libarchive?is?ok,?but?there?are?others: > >?>repoquery?--whatrequires?--alldeps?lz

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: A new comps group: dogtag

Hi Bill, I was wondering if you had a chance to review the patch to comps- f13.xml.in. Thanks, --Kevin On Feb 10, 2010, at 7:47 PM, Kevin Wright wrote: > > On Feb 10, 2010, at 10:01 AM, Bill Nottingham wrote: > >> Parag N(पराग़) (panem...@gmail.com) said: >>> Forwarding this mail on behalf of Ke

Re: A new comps group: dogtag

I don't know that it's a hard requirement, but I think every group needs to have at least one default or mandatory package. Otherwise, "yum groupinstall" will have no effect. -- Dennis On Fri, 2010-02-12 at 11:46 -0800, Kevin Wright wrote: > Hi Bill, > > I was wondering if you had a chance to

Re: A new comps group: dogtag

Dennis, You may be right. However, if that's the case, then 389 will have the same problem: directory-server <_name>Directory Server <_description>Machine and user identity servers. false true 389-admin-console 389-console 389-ds-admin

Re: A new comps group: dogtag

I could have sworn I sent a response already. In any case... Kevin Wright (kwri...@redhat.com) said: > You may be right. However, if that's the case, then 389 will have > the same problem: In the case of dogtag, it's the only cert server in the group. So it should have default/mandatory set on t

Re: No lzma sdk in fedora

On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 19:25:14 +0100, Milos Jakubicek wrote: > 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! > >

Anyone using e2fsprogs static libs?

I've finally been sufficiently pestered to fix this ;) Is anybody using any of these static libs from e2fsprogs? -%{_libdir}/libe2p.a -%{_libdir}/libext2fs.a -%{_libdir}/libcom_err.a -%{_libdir}/libss.a I'm inclined to just remove them rather than making a -static package, unless anyone needs th

Re: No lzma sdk in fedora

> Another related note is that someone wanted a src package for it because > they had something that would only build with access to the source. I am > not planning on providing that, but wanted people to be aware we had a request > for it. The package that needs the src is the upx package. The c

Proposal: move comps to fedorahosted git

I'd like to propose moving comps to fedorahosted git. Why? Because CVS is a pain. I can work on fixing the automated releng tasks that use comps. What I'd like to know is if doing this at some point over the next few weeks (say, post-Alpha) would be a problem for people. If it is, we can push it

Re: Proposal: move comps to fedorahosted git

On Fri, 2010-02-12 at 16:45 -0500, Bill Nottingham wrote: > I'd like to propose moving comps to fedorahosted git. > Why? Because CVS is a pain. > > I can work on fixing the automated releng tasks that use comps. > > What I'd like to know is if doing this at some point over the > next few weeks (s

Re: man-db vs. man

On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 17:53:50 +0100 Till Maas wrote: > In a package of mine, "man -l" is used to create a plaintext version > of the manpage, which seems to only work with man-db. Could this be a > Feature for F14 to use man-db instead of man or are there major > reasons not to do this? If you n

Re: No lzma sdk in fedora

On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 13:34:48 -0800, John Reiser wrote: > > Another related note is that someone wanted a src package for it because > > they had something that would only build with access to the source. I am > > not planning on providing that, but wanted people to be aware we had a > > req

No Frozen Rawhide min-FAD recap

We met for approximately 3 hours on IRC, Gobby, and Fedora Talk. As previously announced, the purpose of this meeting was to outline our approach to getting the word out about what changing to "No Frozen Rawhide" means and who it would affect. All the discussion and next actions are captured i

Re: Anyone using e2fsprogs static libs?

On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 02:59:37PM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote: > I've finally been sufficiently pestered to fix this ;) > > Is anybody using any of these static libs from e2fsprogs? > > -%{_libdir}/libe2p.a > -%{_libdir}/libext2fs.a > -%{_libdir}/libcom_err.a > -%{_libdir}/libss.a > > I'm incline

Re: Anyone using e2fsprogs static libs?

Patrice Dumas wrote: > On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 02:59:37PM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote: >> I've finally been sufficiently pestered to fix this ;) >> >> Is anybody using any of these static libs from e2fsprogs? >> >> -%{_libdir}/libe2p.a >> -%{_libdir}/libext2fs.a >> -%{_libdir}/libcom_err.a >> -%{_lib

Re: No lzma sdk in fedora

On 02/12/2010 02:09 PM, Bruno Wolff III wrote: > On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 13:34:48 -0800, >John Reiser wrote: >> The package that needs the src is the upx package. The coupling >> is very strong, therefore a physical copy of the entire specific >> version of lzma source was put into the source

Re: Anyone using e2fsprogs static libs?

On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 16:36:24 -0600, Eric wrote: > Patrice Dumas wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 02:59:37PM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote: > >> I've finally been sufficiently pestered to fix this ;) > >> > >> Is anybody using any of these static libs from e2fsprogs? > >> > >> -%{_libdir}/libe2p.a >

Re: No lzma sdk in fedora

On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 15:04:06 -0800, John Reiser wrote: > > Going forward, there should be a -libs package (and probably a -devel package) > and its use should be encouraged (instead of lzma source), particularly for > new uses. Probably it is too difficult to force _all_ existing uses of l

Re: Anyone using e2fsprogs static libs?

Michael Schwendt wrote: > On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 16:36:24 -0600, Eric wrote: > >> Patrice Dumas wrote: >>> On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 02:59:37PM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote: I've finally been sufficiently pestered to fix this ;) Is anybody using any of these static libs from e2fsprogs?

Re: man-db vs. man

Couldn't you still do something similar with man-db to get the desired effect? On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 4:01 PM, Hans Ulrich Niedermann < h...@n-dimensional.de> wrote: > On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 17:53:50 +0100 > Till Maas wrote: > > > In a package of mine, "man -l" is used to create a plaintext versio

livecd-create error message

Hi, I'm trying to build a live-cd so I can test the latest ATI driver revision for an active bug I opened a while ago [1]. For that purpose I created a Rawhide VM on my F11 host because apparently one cannot build a Rawhide LiveCD on a F11 system. The problem is that once the livecd-creator has

Re: No lzma sdk in fedora

On 02/12/2010 03:11 PM, Bruno Wolff III wrote: > What I was really asking is if there should > be a source package so that upx could be built without having a second > copy of the SDK in another srpm? The previous editions lzma442, 443, 449, 457, 458, 459, all required *different* adaptations by

Re: No lzma sdk in fedora

On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 03:04:06PM -0800, John Reiser wrote: > > > Where is an appropriate location to put the source? > > The Fedora upx package put its copy of lzma465.tar.bz2 as another file in > the SOURCES for Fedora upx, in same directory as upx-3.04.tar.bz2. > This is a bundled library an

Name that Tree!

As part of no frozen rawhide, we'll have a new tree on the mirrors, pub/fedora/linux/development/13 That's where we'll be putting things that are tagged for the release after they get through testing. We don't yet have a clever name for this concept yet, and we've just been calling it "Pending".

Re: Name that Tree!

On 02/12/2010 04:45 PM, Jesse Keating wrote: > As part of no frozen rawhide, we'll have a new tree on the mirrors, > pub/fedora/linux/development/13 That's where we'll be putting things > that are tagged for the release after they get through testing. We > don't yet have a clever name for this co

Re: Name that Tree!

On Fri, 2010-02-12 at 17:35 -0800, Josh Stone wrote: > On 02/12/2010 04:45 PM, Jesse Keating wrote: > > As part of no frozen rawhide, we'll have a new tree on the mirrors, > > pub/fedora/linux/development/13 That's where we'll be putting things > > that are tagged for the release after they get th

Re: Name that Tree!

On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 11:39:45 +1000 Dave Airlie wrote: > On Fri, 2010-02-12 at 17:35 -0800, Josh Stone wrote: > > On 02/12/2010 04:45 PM, Jesse Keating wrote: > > > As part of no frozen rawhide, we'll have a new tree on the > > > mirrors, pub/fedora/linux/development/13 That's where we'll be > >

-static packages not multilib'd?

Hi, I was recently asked why there isn't an fftw-static.i386 on EPEL x86_64, even though both fftw and fftw-devel are available in both 32- and 64-bits. Is this a bug in the repo scripts, or an intentional feature..? -- Jussi Lehtola Fedora Project Contributor jussileht...@fedoraproject.org --

Re: Name that Tree!

On 02/12/2010 04:45 PM, Jesse Keating wrote: > As part of no frozen rawhide, we'll have a new tree on the mirrors, > pub/fedora/linux/development/13 That's where we'll be putting things > that are tagged for the release after they get through testing. We > don't yet have a clever name for this co

Re: A new comps group: dogtag

On Feb 12, 2010, at 12:21 PM, Bill Nottingham wrote: > I could have sworn I sent a response already. In any case... > > Kevin Wright (kwri...@redhat.com) said: >> You may be right. However, if that's the case, then 389 will have >> the same problem: > > In the case of dogtag, it's the only cert s

Re: Name that Tree!

On Fri, 12 Feb 2010, Jesse Keating wrote: > As part of no frozen rawhide, we'll have a new tree on the mirrors, > pub/fedora/linux/development/13 That's where we'll be putting things > that are tagged for the release after they get through testing. We > don't yet have a clever name for this co

Re: Name that Tree!

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 02/13/2010 07:17 AM, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 11:39:45 +1000 > Dave Airlie wrote: > >> On Fri, 2010-02-12 at 17:35 -0800, Josh Stone wrote: >>> On 02/12/2010 04:45 PM, Jesse Keating wrote: As part of no frozen rawhide, we'll h

Re: Name that Tree!

On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 04:45:32PM -0800, Jesse Keating wrote: > As part of no frozen rawhide, we'll have a new tree on the mirrors, > pub/fedora/linux/development/13 That's where we'll be putting things > that are tagged for the release after they get through testing. We > don't yet have a cleve

Re: Name that Tree!

On Fri, 2010-02-12 at 16:45 -0800, Jesse Keating wrote: > As part of no frozen rawhide, we'll have a new tree on the mirrors, > pub/fedora/linux/development/13 That's where we'll be putting things > that are tagged for the release after they get through testing. We > don't yet have a clever name

Re: Name that Tree!

On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 7:45 PM, Jesse Keating wrote: > As part of no frozen rawhide, we'll have a new tree on the mirrors, > pub/fedora/linux/development/13  That's where we'll be putting things > that are tagged for the release after they get through testing.  We > don't yet have a clever name f

Re: No lzma sdk in fedora

On 02/12/2010 04:08 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: > On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 03:04:06PM -0800, John Reiser wrote: >> The Fedora upx package put its copy of lzma465.tar.bz2 as another file in >> the SOURCES for Fedora upx, in same directory as upx-3.04.tar.bz2. >> > This is a bundled library and needs t

Re: No lzma sdk in fedora

On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 07:39:36PM -0800, John Reiser wrote: > On 02/12/2010 04:08 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 03:04:06PM -0800, John Reiser wrote: > >> The Fedora upx package put its copy of lzma465.tar.bz2 as another file in > >> the SOURCES for Fedora upx, in same dire

Re: Name that Tree!

vanguard Its got a nice "we're leading the way" ring to it :) -AdamM -- http://maxamillion.googlepages.com - () ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail /\ www.asciiribbon.org - against proprietary attachments -- devel mailing list

Re: Name that Tree!

On Sat, 2010-02-13 at 07:48 +0530, Hiemanshu Sharma wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 02/13/2010 07:17 AM, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > > On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 11:39:45 +1000 > > Dave Airlie wrote: > > > >> On Fri, 2010-02-12 at 17:35 -0800, Josh Stone wrote: > >>> On 02/12/2

Re: Name that Tree!

On Fri, 2010-02-12 at 16:45 -0800, Jesse Keating wrote: > As part of no frozen rawhide, we'll have a new tree on the mirrors, > pub/fedora/linux/development/13 That's where we'll be putting things > that are tagged for the release after they get through testing. We > don't yet have a clever name