Re: gcc 4.6 for package monkeys

On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 08:26:36AM +0100, Julian Sikorski wrote: > I have just run into an issue with gcc-4.6, namely RPM Fusion's mame > failed to compile [1]. I was told that #include was missing. > So I have two questions: why did including this header directly became > necessary (code builds f

Re: gcc 4.6 for package monkeys

On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 11:29:45PM -0800, Garrett Holmstrom wrote: > On 1/27/2011 23:26, Julian Sikorski wrote: > > I have just run into an issue with gcc-4.6, namely RPM Fusion's mame > > failed to compile [1]. I was told that #include was missing. > > So I have two questions: why did including t

Re: gcc 4.6 for package monkeys

On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 12:11 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 11:29:45PM -0800, Garrett Holmstrom wrote: > > On 1/27/2011 23:26, Julian Sikorski wrote: > > > I have just run into an issue with gcc-4.6, namely RPM Fusion's mame > > > failed to compile [1]. I was told that #inclu

Re: fedpkg build version numbering discrepancy

On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 18:10:31 -0500, Jean-Marc wrote: > Hello, > > Hoping to be wrong. > > Today I was working on my package after a long time, > I upgraded from version 2.1-320 to 2.1-400. > > I didn't "fedpkg new-sources" and only updated > the spec file to be 2.1

debugfs query

Hi, Currently Fedora doesn't automatically mount debugfs at boot time. So I thought that it might be worth asking whether this should be the case? One alternative would be to only mount it when a package was installed that requires debugfs. The issue there is that there are potentially, at least,

rawhide report: 20110128 changes

Compose started at Fri Jan 28 08:15:23 UTC 2011 Broken deps for x86_64 -- beagle-0.3.9-19.fc14.x86_64 requires libmono.so.0()(64bit) beagle-0.3.9-19.fc14.x86_64 requires libmono.so.0(VER_1)(64bit) beagle-0.3.9-19.fc14.

Review swaps again

Hello All! I would like to swap the following review requests with anyone: * erlang-cluster-info https://bugzilla.redhat.com/671884 * erlang-riak_errr https://bugzilla.redhat.com/672203 Both are quite simple and legally clean (as far as I can see) so it wont take too much time. -- With best re

Re: Heads up: Sourceforge upstream attacked

Mike McGrath wrote: > Hey everyone, just a heads up. Looks like sourceforge was attacked. > Details are still on the way but please do pay extra careful attention > when downloading and updating your packages, verify whatever checksums you > can, etc. > > http://sourceforge.net/apps/wordpress/sour

Re: Summary/Minutes from today's FESCo meeting (2011-01-26)

2011/1/26 Jason L Tibbitts III : >> "pm" == philippe makowski writes: > > pm> You mean that the initscript provided by upstream should be changed > pm> ? > > Yes. > > pm> chkconfig: 345 80 20 > > pm> chkconfig: - 80 20 > ok, so I'll change it in RawHide -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedor

Re: gcc 4.6 for package monkeys

On 1/28/2011 0:11, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > Care to share details? Of course there were many changes in the C++ FE, > especially for C++0x, and maybe some warnings changed into errors, but > nothing I'd describe as a lot. We haven't still written > http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.6/porting_to.html so if y

Re: debugfs query

On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 10:36:20AM +, Steven Whitehouse wrote: > Hi, > > Currently Fedora doesn't automatically mount debugfs at boot time. So I > thought that it might be worth asking whether this should be the case? > systemd seems to, so I guess it will be mounted by default in F-15. --K

cpanspec - proposal of default behaviour

Hello Steven, I'd like to propose a change in default behaviour of cpanspec. There shouldn't be defined buildroot, called rm -rf in build phase, etc. These changes are optional, the old behaviour can be triggered with --epel option. [1] I'd like to see this change soon at least in rawhide, because

Re: gcc 4.6 for package monkeys

On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 08:11:20AM -0800, Garrett Holmstrom wrote: > On 1/28/2011 0:11, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > Care to share details? Of course there were many changes in the C++ FE, > > especially for C++0x, and maybe some warnings changed into errors, but > > nothing I'd describe as a lot. We

Haskell packaging questions

I recently came across an issue in a package review where I would appreciate guidance. In particular, I have never dealt with Haskell packages before, and I haven't been able to find enough detail in the Haskell Packaging Guidelines to answer my questions: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/

Comps group for Robotics

Hi all, Pursuant to the Robotics SIG's F15 feature[1], we've come up with a new comps group for robotics development. We've prepared a patch against the F15 comps.xml[2], and would appreciate it if you all would look it over before we submit it. Thanks, Rich Mattes [1] http://fedoraproject.

again, was Re: tor-lsb -- hey, look, package script, don't complain to _me_. I'm just installing you. (fwd)

This nonsense is still present in th el5 package. Can a provenpackager please get rid of it. Bug 522053 is even closed now Paul Preparing...### [100%] 1:tor-core ### [ 33%]

Re: Haskell packaging questions

Hi Andrew, Please have a look at the review template here [1]. Some items from the Package review guidelines which do not apply are marked [NA]. The cabal2spec program generates the template for the .spec file from the .cabal file. Then