Re: Need Little IT advice Here...

On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 8:58 PM, Manuel Escudero wrote: > Hi, I was Wondering if there was a tool for Linux in general > that let me undo the system changes at reboot or something > like that, For example: > > I want to set a standard configuration in a machine and then > let that machine to be us

Re: Need Little IT advice Here...

You should look into the xguest package on Fedora. It provides a sandboxed user which gets wiped on logout. If you need to add more tools for the guest to use I'd suggest contacting Dan Walsh for additional help since he is the maintainer. Dave On 8/11/2011 11:58 PM, Manuel Escudero wrote: > H

Re: Fwd: [Fedora Update] [CRITPATH] [old_testing_critpath] mdadm-3.1.3-0.git20100804.3.fc14

On Thu, 2011-08-11 at 19:40 -0400, Doug Ledford wrote: > > I've never got around to working up a coherent proposed modification and > > submitting it, though - if anyone else can, that'd be great. > > I'll just go back to what I've said before. I don't care what system > you create as long as th

Re: To Require or not to Require?

Michael Schwendt writes: > So, where are we now? yum install bar doesn't update foo-libs automagically. Andreas. -- Andreas Schwab, sch...@redhat.com GPG Key fingerprint = D4E8 DBE3 3813 BB5D FA84 5EC7 45C6 250E 6F00 984E "And now for something completely different." -- devel mailing list d

Re: Fwd: [Fedora Update] [CRITPATH] [old_testing_critpath] mdadm-3.1.3-0.git20100804.3.fc14

On 08/12/2011 10:28 AM, Adam Williamson wrote: > The reason why the package maintainer gets nagged has been explained > several times: part of the theory behind the current process is that it > is, to some extent, your responsibility as a package maintainer to > ensure your package gets tested. You

Re: Need Little IT advice Here...

On Fri, 2011-08-12 at 00:05 -0700, T.C. Hollingsworth wrote: > On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 8:58 PM, Manuel Escudero wrote: > > Hi, I was Wondering if there was a tool for Linux in general > > that let me undo the system changes at reboot or something > > like that, For example: > > > > I want to set a

Re: Package review request - yourls

- Original Message - > From: "Martin Krizek" > To: t...@lists.fedoraproject.org, devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > Sent: Wednesday, August 3, 2011 2:19:20 PM > Subject: Package review request - yourls > Hello all, > > I packaged yourls (http://yourls.org/), a url shortening service that > c

Re: Fwd: [Fedora Update] [CRITPATH] [old_testing_critpath] mdadm-3.1.3-0.git20100804.3.fc14

On 08/12/2011 09:40 AM, Kalev Lember wrote: > On 08/12/2011 10:28 AM, Adam Williamson wrote: >> The reason why the package maintainer gets nagged has been explained >> several times: part of the theory behind the current process is that it >> is, to some extent, your responsibility as a package mai

Re: To Require or not to Require?

On Fri, 12 Aug 2011 09:32:26 +0200, AS (Andreas) wrote: > > So, where are we now? > > yum install bar doesn't update foo-libs automagically. Which is why you may benefit from an explicit dependency *if* you publish such an updated "bar" that needs a specific minimum version of foo-libs: http://f

Re: To Require or not to Require?

Michael Schwendt writes: > So, what is safer? Neither fixes the missing symbol. Andreas. -- Andreas Schwab, sch...@redhat.com GPG Key fingerprint = D4E8 DBE3 3813 BB5D FA84 5EC7 45C6 250E 6F00 984E "And now for something completely different." -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject

Re: To Require or not to Require?

On Fri, 12 Aug 2011 12:12:15 +0200, AS (Andreas) wrote: > > So, what is safer? > > Neither fixes the missing symbol. There is no missing symbol. Be more verbose. Your very brief replies don't give enough context. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.o

Re: To Require or not to Require?

Michael Schwendt writes: > There is no missing symbol. Of course there is. See . Andreas. -- Andreas Schwab, sch...@redhat.com GPG Key fingerprint = D4E8 DBE3 3813 BB5D FA84 5EC7 45C6 250E 6F00 984E "And now for something co

File Unicode-Casing-0.08.tar.gz uploaded to lookaside cache by psabata

A file has been added to the lookaside cache for perl-Unicode-Casing: 11104e2aeecdaf256a8ddba7c61666d4 Unicode-Casing-0.08.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

[perl-Unicode-Casing] 0.08 bump

commit 134313ff5fd5a45110c71f2606fc2e18f6b29f50 Author: Petr Sabata Date: Fri Aug 12 13:01:43 2011 +0200 0.08 bump .gitignore |1 + perl-Unicode-Casing.spec |7 +-- sources |2 +- 3 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) --- diff --gi

Re: Fwd: [Fedora Update] [CRITPATH] [old_testing_critpath] mdadm-3.1.3-0.git20100804.3.fc14

On 08/10/2011 03:02 PM, Doug Ledford wrote: > Can we please either disable these nag messages or give developers the > ability to push a package regardless of testing when it reaches nag age? I'm getting the same mail for some time now for my critpath security update. I'm just wondering how lon

Re: To Require or not to Require?

On Fri, 12 Aug 2011 13:00:57 +0200, AS (Andreas) wrote: > > There is no missing symbol. > > Of course there is. See > . No, there isn't, because of a subpackage dependency with full NEVR, even if that may not be needed as a defa

Re: Fwd: [Fedora Update] [CRITPATH] [old_testing_critpath] mdadm-3.1.3-0.git20100804.3.fc14

On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 5:32 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Wed, 2011-08-10 at 09:02 -0400, Doug Ledford wrote: >> Can we please either disable these nag messages or give developers the >> ability to push a package regardless of testing when it reaches nag age? > > You have that ability for non-c

rawhide report: 20110812 changes

Compose started at Fri Aug 12 08:15:20 UTC 2011 Broken deps for x86_64 -- acheck-0.5.1-4.fc15.noarch requires perl(Text::Aspell) almanah-0.7.3-12.fc16.x86_64 requires libedataserverui-3.0.so.0()(64bit) almanah-0.7.3-12

Re: To Require or not to Require?

Michael Schwendt writes: > The separate "bar" package still is entirely irrelevant It kills your entire argument. Andreas. -- Andreas Schwab, sch...@redhat.com GPG Key fingerprint = D4E8 DBE3 3813 BB5D FA84 5EC7 45C6 250E 6F00 984E "And now for something completely different." -- devel mail

Re: Need Little IT advice Here...

xguest is the way to do this because it involves much more than simply wiping the hard drive. xguest also locks down the account with selinux so that the vector for attacks is quite minimal. On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 3:21 AM, Dave Quigley wrote: > You should look into the xguest package on Fedora.

Re: To Require or not to Require?

On Fri, 12 Aug 2011 14:30:46 +0200, Andreas Schwab wrote: > > The separate "bar" package still is entirely irrelevant > > It kills your entire argument. > > Andreas. It still doesn't. libfoo update would need to come first. First come, first served. And what packaging techniques to apply in th

Re: Need Little IT advice Here...

On fre, 2011-08-12 at 00:05 -0700, T.C. Hollingsworth wrote: > Why not keep a known good home directory on hand, and replace it on logout? Though you still have the user's files in other locations on disk. It'd be better to just create a new user for each login. Or xguest, or LVM or btrfs snapsh

File Test-Mojibake-0.3.tar.gz uploaded to lookaside cache by pghmcfc

A file has been added to the lookaside cache for perl-Test-Mojibake: 6387414378fc302582d7955e61f132e3 Test-Mojibake-0.3.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/ma

Re: To Require or not to Require?

Michael Schwendt writes: > libfoo update would need to come first. How? Andreas. -- Andreas Schwab, sch...@redhat.com GPG Key fingerprint = D4E8 DBE3 3813 BB5D FA84 5EC7 45C6 250E 6F00 984E "And now for something completely different." -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org htt

Re: conflict in packages in fedora 15

On Fri, 12 Aug 2011 02:29:14 +0300, MA (Muayyad) wrote: > hello, > > what is the reason for this > > Transaction Check Error: > file /lib/firmware/phanfw.bin from install of > netxen-firmware-4.0.534-4.fc15.noarch conflicts with file from package > linux-firmware-20110601-1.fc15.noarch It's a

[perl-Test-CPAN-Meta-JSON/f15] Initial import (perl-Test-CPAN-Meta-JSON-0.10-2)

Summary of changes: 815cd6c... Initial import (perl-Test-CPAN-Meta-JSON-0.10-2) (*) (*) This commit already existed in another branch; no separate mail sent -- Fedora Extras Perl SIG http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl perl-devel mailing list perl-de...@lists.fedoraproject.org ht

Re: To Require or not to Require?

On Fri, 12 Aug 2011 15:54:45 +0200, Andreas Schwab wrote: > > libfoo update would need to come first. > > How? > > Andreas. > If you're serious about discussing this further, show that. I'm not going to reply to this thread anymore before tomorrow. With your single-word reply you [once again

[perl-Module-Extract-VERSION/el4] Initial import (perl-Module-Extract-VERSION-1.01-3)

Summary of changes: 9d8959e... Initial import (perl-Module-Extract-VERSION-1.01-3) (*) (*) This commit already existed in another branch; no separate mail sent -- Fedora Extras Perl SIG http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl perl-devel mailing list perl-de...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[perl-Test-CPAN-Meta-JSON/f14] Initial import (perl-Test-CPAN-Meta-JSON-0.10-2)

Summary of changes: 815cd6c... Initial import (perl-Test-CPAN-Meta-JSON-0.10-2) (*) (*) This commit already existed in another branch; no separate mail sent -- Fedora Extras Perl SIG http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl perl-devel mailing list perl-de...@lists.fedoraproject.org ht

[perl-Test-Mojibake] Initial import (perl-Test-Mojibake-0.3-2)

commit 43d4f14ea49c89102508d61f443de0203f44090c Author: Paul Howarth Date: Fri Aug 12 14:52:55 2011 +0100 Initial import (perl-Test-Mojibake-0.3-2) Many modern text editors automatically save files using UTF-8 codification. However, the perl interpreter does not expect it by de

Re: To Require or not to Require?

On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 02:30:46PM +0200, Andreas Schwab wrote: > Michael Schwendt writes: > > > The separate "bar" package still is entirely irrelevant > > It kills your entire argument. > AFAICS, your insistance that it is a blocker means that you aren't seeing something correctly. -Toshio

[perl-Module-Extract-VERSION] Created tag perl-Module-Extract-VERSION-1.01-3.el4

The lightweight tag 'perl-Module-Extract-VERSION-1.01-3.el4' was created pointing to: 9d8959e... Initial import (perl-Module-Extract-VERSION-1.01-3) -- Fedora Extras Perl SIG http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl perl-devel mailing list perl-de...@lists.fedoraproject.org https://adm

[perl-Module-Extract-VERSION] Created tag perl-Module-Extract-VERSION-1.01-3.el6

The lightweight tag 'perl-Module-Extract-VERSION-1.01-3.el6' was created pointing to: 9d8959e... Initial import (perl-Module-Extract-VERSION-1.01-3) -- Fedora Extras Perl SIG http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl perl-devel mailing list perl-de...@lists.fedoraproject.org https://adm

[perl-Module-Extract-VERSION] Created tag perl-Module-Extract-VERSION-1.01-3.fc14

The lightweight tag 'perl-Module-Extract-VERSION-1.01-3.fc14' was created pointing to: 9d8959e... Initial import (perl-Module-Extract-VERSION-1.01-3) -- Fedora Extras Perl SIG http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl perl-devel mailing list perl-de...@lists.fedoraproject.org https://ad

[perl-Module-Extract-VERSION] Created tag perl-Module-Extract-VERSION-1.01-3.fc15

The lightweight tag 'perl-Module-Extract-VERSION-1.01-3.fc15' was created pointing to: 9d8959e... Initial import (perl-Module-Extract-VERSION-1.01-3) -- Fedora Extras Perl SIG http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl perl-devel mailing list perl-de...@lists.fedoraproject.org https://ad

[perl-Module-Extract-VERSION] Created tag perl-Module-Extract-VERSION-1.01-3.fc16

The lightweight tag 'perl-Module-Extract-VERSION-1.01-3.fc16' was created pointing to: 9d8959e... Initial import (perl-Module-Extract-VERSION-1.01-3) -- Fedora Extras Perl SIG http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl perl-devel mailing list perl-de...@lists.fedoraproject.org https://ad

Re: To Require or not to Require?

Your whole argument is just void. There is not a single difference between "external" packages and (sub-)packages. Andreas. -- Andreas Schwab, sch...@redhat.com GPG Key fingerprint = D4E8 DBE3 3813 BB5D FA84 5EC7 45C6 250E 6F00 984E "And now for something completely different." -- devel maili

[perl-Module-Extract-VERSION] Created tag perl-Module-Extract-VERSION-1.01-3.fc17

The lightweight tag 'perl-Module-Extract-VERSION-1.01-3.fc17' was created pointing to: 9d8959e... Initial import (perl-Module-Extract-VERSION-1.01-3) -- Fedora Extras Perl SIG http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl perl-devel mailing list perl-de...@lists.fedoraproject.org https://ad

[perl-Test-CPAN-Meta-JSON/el6] Initial import (perl-Test-CPAN-Meta-JSON-0.10-2)

Summary of changes: 815cd6c... Initial import (perl-Test-CPAN-Meta-JSON-0.10-2) (*) (*) This commit already existed in another branch; no separate mail sent -- Fedora Extras Perl SIG http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl perl-devel mailing list perl-de...@lists.fedoraproject.org ht

Re: To Require or not to Require?

On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 4:15 PM, Andreas Schwab wrote: > Your whole argument is just void.  There is not a single difference > between "external" packages and (sub-)packages. There is one difference: with subpackages it is trivial to write a Requires: that 1) is always strict enough and 2) is alwa

[perl-Test-Mojibake/f16] Initial import (perl-Test-Mojibake-0.3-2)

Summary of changes: 43d4f14... Initial import (perl-Test-Mojibake-0.3-2) (*) (*) This commit already existed in another branch; no separate mail sent -- Fedora Extras Perl SIG http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl perl-devel mailing list perl-de...@lists.fedoraproject.org https://a

Re: To Require or not to Require?

Miloslav Trmač writes: > There is one difference: with subpackages it is trivial to write a > Requires: that 1) is always strict enough and 2) is always satisfied. > For external packages achieving both requires non-trivial human > effort. Yet you insist that your "external" package is always wo

Re: Fedora 15 and mount points

Am 12.08.2011 00:43, schrieb Tom H: >> Seems this is a known *feature* of F-15 and no one is all that interested in >> changing it. Unfortunately, I have a good number of scripts that use the >> output of df and mount that would need modified for this. The /var/tmp >> mount is especially troub

Re: To Require or not to Require?

On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 04:18:34PM +0200, Miloslav Trmač wrote: > On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 4:15 PM, Andreas Schwab wrote: > > Your whole argument is just void.  There is not a single difference > > between "external" packages and (sub-)packages. > There is one difference: with subpackages it is tri

Re: Fedora 15 and mount points

On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 10:46:27AM +0200, Reindl Harald wrote: > > I thought that their outputs, especially that of findmnt, would've > > clarified the output of mount, except for the three sandbox bind > > mounts. > > > > Suggestions for replacing mount in your scripts: > > findmnt -lnu -o SOURCE

Re: Fedora 15 and mount points

Am 12.08.2011 17:00, schrieb Tomasz Torcz: > On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 10:46:27AM +0200, Reindl Harald wrote: >>> I thought that their outputs, especially that of findmnt, would've >>> clarified the output of mount, except for the three sandbox bind >>> mounts. >>> >>> Suggestions for replacing mou

File ORLite-Mirror-1.22.tar.gz uploaded to lookaside cache by iarnell

A file has been added to the lookaside cache for perl-ORLite-Mirror: 066119d0eba45875df2b29ee19e5ff84 ORLite-Mirror-1.22.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/m

Re: To Require or not to Require?

On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 04:15:49PM +0200, Andreas Schwab wrote: > Your whole argument is just void. There is not a single difference > between "external" packages and (sub-)packages. > Here's a couple differences: (libfoo-1.0 building subpackage foo-utils) is licensed LGPLv2 (libfoo-1.0.1 buildi

Re: Fedora 15 and mount points

On 08/12/2011 11:03 AM, Reindl Harald wrote: Am 12.08.2011 17:00, schrieb Tomasz Torcz: On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 10:46:27AM +0200, Reindl Harald wrote: I thought that their outputs, especially that of findmnt, would've clarified the output of mount, except for the three sandbox bind mounts. Su

[perl-CGI-Emulate-PSGI/el6] * First EPEL6 release (F15 SRPM)

commit a024edea4dc883d413e4fcf0d846d21ea78071f0 Author: Jose Pedro Oliveira Date: Fri Aug 12 16:33:58 2011 +0100 * First EPEL6 release (F15 SRPM) perl-CGI-Emulate-PSGI.spec |5 + 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) --- diff --git a/perl-CGI-Emulate-PSGI.spec b/perl-C

[perl-CGI-Emulate-PSGI] Created tag perl-CGI-Emulate-PSGI-0.12-1.el6

The lightweight tag 'perl-CGI-Emulate-PSGI-0.12-1.el6' was created pointing to: a024ede... * First EPEL6 release (F15 SRPM) -- 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/mail

Re: To Require or not to Require?

On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 08:27:13AM -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: > Rightly or wrongly, upstream libfoo-1.0 has some additional utilities that > access the PrivateData. Because the utilities are built from the libfoo > source, they can include the fooprivate.h header file and do this. When > libf

[perl-ORLite-Mirror] update to 1.22

commit fbf663e917605346c1d3a1bfaedf757c293b2cbd Author: Iain Arnell Date: Fri Aug 12 17:40:53 2011 +0200 update to 1.22 .gitignore |1 + perl-ORLite-Mirror.spec | 12 ++-- sources |2 +- 3 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) --- di

Re: To Require or not to Require?

On Fri, 2011-08-12 at 16:40 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: > On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 08:27:13AM -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: > > > Rightly or wrongly, upstream libfoo-1.0 has some additional utilities that > > access the PrivateData. Because the utilities are built from the libfoo > > source, the

[perl-FCGI-Client/el6] * First EPEL6 release (based on the F15 SRPM)

commit 3a8621a5b3db4e4bf67045cca20e545a34e980de Author: Jose Pedro Oliveira Date: Fri Aug 12 17:08:22 2011 +0100 * First EPEL6 release (based on the F15 SRPM) perl-FCGI-Client.spec |7 --- 1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) --- diff --git a/perl-FCGI-Client.spec b/p

[perl-FCGI-Client] Created tag perl-FCGI-Client-0.04-5.el6.1

The lightweight tag 'perl-FCGI-Client-0.04-5.el6.1' was created pointing to: 3a8621a... * First EPEL6 release (based on the F15 SRPM) -- Fedora Extras Perl SIG http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl perl-devel mailing list perl-de...@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraprojec

Re: Fwd: [Fedora Update] [CRITPATH] [old_testing_critpath] mdadm-3.1.3-0.git20100804.3.fc14

On Fri, 2011-08-12 at 11:30 +0200, Michal Hlavinka wrote: > On 08/10/2011 03:02 PM, Doug Ledford wrote: > > Can we please either disable these nag messages or give developers the > > ability to push a package regardless of testing when it reaches nag age? > > I'm getting the same mail for some t

Re: To Require or not to Require?

On 08/12/2011 04:40 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote: > On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 08:27:13AM -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: > >> Rightly or wrongly, upstream libfoo-1.0 has some additional utilities that >> access the PrivateData. Because the utilities are built from the libfoo >> source, they can include

Re: To Require or not to Require?

On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 04:40:20PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: > On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 08:27:13AM -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: > > > Rightly or wrongly, upstream libfoo-1.0 has some additional utilities that > > access the PrivateData. Because the utilities are built from the libfoo > > sour

Re: To Require or not to Require?

On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 05:25:17PM +0100, Bryn M. Reeves wrote: > Third party code built against -devel and depending only on the SONAME is fine > in this situation as it sticks to the published ABI. In-tree code that plays > with non-ABI symbols will break and so may need a stricter dep. It is i

[perl-asa/el6] * First EPEL6 release (F15 SRPM)

commit 9a9e79c474ff3f4e9ac7e8476fcba7dac177d197 Author: Jose Pedro Oliveira Date: Fri Aug 12 17:28:17 2011 +0100 * First EPEL6 release (F15 SRPM) perl-asa.spec | 19 ++- sources |2 +- 2 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-) --- diff --git a/perl-as

[perl-asa] Created tag perl-asa-0.02-8.el6

The lightweight tag 'perl-asa-0.02-8.el6' was created pointing to: 9a9e79c... * First EPEL6 release (F15 SRPM) -- 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/mailman/listinfo/

Re: To Require or not to Require?

On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 09:26:33AM -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: > On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 04:40:20PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: > > Upstream can change the ABI as much as they want without bumping the > > SONAME providing that the old interfaces are also present. It's entirely > > possible to

Patching config files (or not)

Hi, Should configs files of a package be patched to have settings that make it work more or less out of the box (as far as possible, some setting like DB access etc. just can't be filled in in advance)? I came across a package that defines to use "nogroup" in its config file as effective group (F

Re: Patching config files (or not)

On Fri, 2011-08-12 at 18:50 +0200, Jos Vos wrote: > Hi, > > Should configs files of a package be patched to have settings that > make it work more or less out of the box (as far as possible, some > setting like DB access etc. just can't be filled in in advance)? > > I came across a package that d

Re: To Require or not to Require?

On 8/12/11 12:28 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote: > On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 05:25:17PM +0100, Bryn M. Reeves wrote: > >> Third party code built against -devel and depending only on the SONAME is >> fine >> in this situation as it sticks to the published ABI. In-tree code that plays >> with non-ABI symbo

Re: To Require or not to Require?

On 8/12/2011 1:28 PM, Adam Jackson wrote: > On 8/12/11 12:28 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote: >> On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 05:25:17PM +0100, Bryn M. Reeves wrote: >> >>> Third party code built against -devel and depending only on the SONAME is >>> fine >>> in this situation as it sticks to the published A

Re: Fwd: [Fedora Update] [CRITPATH] [old_testing_critpath] mdadm-3.1.3-0.git20100804.3.fc14

On 8/12/2011 3:28 AM, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Thu, 2011-08-11 at 19:40 -0400, Doug Ledford wrote: > >>> I've never got around to working up a coherent proposed modification and >>> submitting it, though - if anyone else can, that'd be great. >> >> I'll just go back to what I've said before. I

Re: To Require or not to Require?

On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 01:28:59PM -0400, Adam Jackson wrote: > On 8/12/11 12:28 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 05:25:17PM +0100, Bryn M. Reeves wrote: > > > >> Third party code built against -devel and depending only on the SONAME is > >> fine > >> in this situation as it

Re: To Require or not to Require?

On Fri, 2011-08-12 at 13:28 -0400, Adam Jackson wrote: > On 8/12/11 12:28 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 05:25:17PM +0100, Bryn M. Reeves wrote: > > > >> Third party code built against -devel and depending only on the SONAME is > >> fine > >> in this situation as it sticks

F16 Alpha Blocker Bug Review #5 Recap

=== #fedora-bugzappers: F16 Alpha Blocker Bug Review Meeting #5 === Minutes: http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-bugzappers/2011-08-12/fedora-bugzappers.2011-08-12-17.02.html Minute

Re: To Require or not to Require?

On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 05:28:56PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: > On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 05:25:17PM +0100, Bryn M. Reeves wrote: > > > Third party code built against -devel and depending only on the SONAME is > > fine > > in this situation as it sticks to the published ABI. In-tree code that pl

F-16 Branched report: 20110812 changes

Compose started at Fri Aug 12 17:30:01 UTC 2011 Broken deps for x86_64 -- 389-ds-base-1.2.9.0-1.fc16.2.x86_64 requires libnetsnmpagent.so.25()(64bit) 389-ds-base-1.2.9.0-1.fc16.2.x86_64 requires libnetsnmpmibs.so.25()(64bit)

Re: Patching config files (or not)

Dne 12.8.2011 18:50, Jos Vos napsal(a): > Should configs files of a package be patched to have settings that > make it work more or less out of the box (as far as possible, some > setting like DB access etc. just can't be filled in in advance)? There are many caveats to this answer, but I think ge

Re: Defining build options based on available compiler version

On 2011-07-30 9:44, Jussi Lehtola wrote: > I tried using > %global gccver %(gcc -dumpversion) > %if %{gccver}>= 4.6.0 >foo here > %endif > > to conditionalize usage of quadruple precision support in a spec file > that ships on multiple distros, but the comparison gives the error > > par

Re: To Require or not to Require?

On Fri, 12 Aug 2011 17:30:10 +0100, MG (Matthew) wrote: > On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 09:26:33AM -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 04:40:20PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: > > > Upstream can change the ABI as much as they want without bumping the > > > SONAME providing that th