On Wed, 2012-08-01 at 02:17 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> I have been working for the better part of a year on moving Fedora off
> of libpng's obsolete 1.2.x release series and onto the current 1.5.x
> series. We are practically there now, and I had hoped to drop libpng
> 1.2 from the distribution befo
On Wed, 2012-08-01 at 00:21 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Wed, 2012-08-01 at 02:17 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > I have been working for the better part of a year on moving Fedora off
> > of libpng's obsolete 1.2.x release series and onto the current 1.5.x
> > series. We are practically there no
- Original Message -
> Before we branch for Fedora 18, as is custom, we will block currently
> orphaned packages and packages that have failed to build since Fedora
> 16.
>
> The following packages are currently orphaned, or fail to build. If
> you have a need for one of these packages, pl
On 08/01/2012 01:06 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> Well, that's really it. The format of LSB is a bit odd to a lay reader,
> but AFAICT, it really does mean: to be technically in compliance with
> LSB-desktop, you need to ship a libpng12.so.0 which provides the listed
> functions. End of story. I do
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=782599
--- Comment #1 from hkoba ---
Created attachment 601701
--> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=601701&action=edit
Minimum patch to avoid qw warnings
If you do not have enough time to test newer CGI::Session,
please apply this patch
On 07/31/2012 10:41 PM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> Removing: libgtkhotkey
> synapse requires libgtkhotkey.so.1
CC'ing Michel Alexandre Salim, synapse maintainer
Ideally the synapse maintainer should own this as well but since I use
synapse, I am going to take ownership of this for now to rescu
- Original Message -
> - Original Message -
> > Before we branch for Fedora 18, as is custom, we will block
> > currently
> > orphaned packages and packages that have failed to build since
> > Fedora
> > 16.
> >
> > The following packages are currently orphaned, or fail to build. I
Bill Nottingham wrote, at 08/01/2012 02:11 AM +9:00:
Before we branch for Fedora 18, as is custom, we will block currently
orphaned packages and packages that have failed to build since Fedora 16.
The following packages are currently orphaned, or fail to build. If
you have a need for one of thes
On 1 August 2012 10:47, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> Fedora is not LSB compatible. Is it? Why do we even care about this at
> all?
I think I can speak for most of the core GNOME desktop developers and
state that we don't care about LSB one little bit.
Richard.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fed
Le 31/07/2012 19:11, Bill Nottingham a écrit :
Package libgtksourceviewmm (fails to build)
retired, since nobody claimed it.
Package nvi (orphan)
Package torque (orphan)
Both taken and co-maintainers are very welcome !
best regards,
H.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.o
On 8/1/12 5:47 AM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
On 08/01/2012 01:06 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
Well, that's really it. The format of LSB is a bit odd to a lay reader,
but AFAICT, it really does mean: to be technically in compliance with
LSB-desktop, you need to ship a libpng12.so.0 which provides the l
Adam Williamson writes:
> On Wed, 2012-08-01 at 00:21 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
>> A very quick search returns this:
>> http://refspecs.linuxbase.org/LSB_4.1.0/LSB-Desktop-generic/LSB-Desktop-generic/libpng.html
Thanks. The links I was given previously didn't lead me to that.
> Well, that's
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=842181
--- Comment #5 from Petr Šabata ---
I've mailed Martin directly now.
I suspect this change wasn't intentional and will include the modules from
0.714 if he doesn't respond in near future.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the
Adam Williamson wrote:
> I'm not sure it makes sense to worry about which approach is best for
> the really commonly used core fonts in deciding, because whichever
> approach we take, clearly we'll wind up taking care to make sure those
> fonts look good.
Of course – for somebody's idea of "good".
On 8/1/12 8:11 AM, Fedora Rawhide Report wrote:
[spring]
spring-88.0-2.fc18.x86_64 requires libGLEW.so.1.6()(64bit)
[toped]
toped-0.9.70.1-3.svn1794.fc17.i686 requires libGLEW.so.1.6
toped-0.9.70.1-3.svn1794.fc17.x86_64 requires libGLEW.so.1.6()(64bit)
I kicked rebuilds
On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 12:11 PM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> Before we branch for Fedora 18, as is custom, we will block currently
> orphaned packages and packages that have failed to build since Fedora 16.
>
> The following packages are currently orphaned, or fail to build. If
> you have a need for
Bill Nottingham writes:
> Before we branch for Fedora 18, as is custom, we will block currently
> orphaned packages and packages that have failed to build since Fedora 16.
>
> The following packages are currently orphaned, or fail to build. If
> you have a need for one of these packages, please p
On Ter, 2012-07-31 at 22:42 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> I'm looking into these:
>
> Bill Nottingham wrote:
> > Package komparator (fails to build)
can't resolve this fail
g++ -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I.. -I/usr/include/kde
-I/usr/lib64/qt-3.3/include -I. -DQT_THREAD_SUPPORT -D_REENTRANT -O2
-g
Just an idea I had and wanted to float it out to the group...
I think it would be nice to get an informational (obviously, not a
blocking type check) to get changes in the requires or provides of a
package. It would be a hassle to check it manually but I hope it would
be fairly easy to automate.
On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 10:05 AM, Richard Shaw wrote:
> Just an idea I had and wanted to float it out to the group...
>
> I think it would be nice to get an informational (obviously, not a
> blocking type check) to get changes in the requires or provides of a
> package. It would be a hassle to chec
> Just an idea I had and wanted to float it out to the group...
>
> I think it would be nice to get an informational (obviously, not a
> blocking type check) to get changes in the requires or provides of a
> package. It would be a hassle to check it manually but I hope it
> would
> be fairly easy
On 08/01/2012 10:03 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> What this means, IMO, is that we need to split out libpng12 as a
> separate package. The current hack that I'm using (bundling 1.2 and 1.5
> into a single SRPM) was never meant to be more than a very short-term
> stopgap; I'm sure it violates all sorts of
commit 0b85f89dee70e9070f4334842497b046d325ce9f
Author: Luis Bazan
Date: Wed Aug 1 11:05:23 2012 -0500
changes root lib
perl-Danga-Socket.spec |7 +--
1 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
---
diff --git a/perl-Danga-Socket.spec b/perl-Danga-Socket.spec
index 0bb0405..5
Nikola Pajkovsky (npajk...@redhat.com) said:
> Bill Nottingham writes:
>
> > Before we branch for Fedora 18, as is custom, we will block currently
> > orphaned packages and packages that have failed to build since Fedora 16.
> >
> > The following packages are currently orphaned, or fail to build
Rahul Sundaram (methe...@gmail.com) said:
> On 08/01/2012 01:06 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
>
> > Well, that's really it. The format of LSB is a bit odd to a lay reader,
> > but AFAICT, it really does mean: to be technically in compliance with
> > LSB-desktop, you need to ship a libpng12.so.0 whic
On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 10:37 AM, Kamil Paral wrote:
> Something like this? [1] [2]
Yup! Something a lot like that! I did look over the AutoQA wiki before
posting but didn't know enough about rpmguard to know that where I
needed to look :)
> We already do that in the form of 'rpmguard' test [3].
On 08/01/2012 09:45 PM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
>
> I can see assorted ways we could theoretically handle a desire to remove
> libpng 1.2 from the distribution, but merely dropping the req from
> redhat-lsb is the obviously wrong answer.
Right. I was obviously not suggesting it but perhaps drop
Il giorno mer, 01/08/2012 alle 09.51 -0400, Adam Jackson ha scritto:
> > Fedora is not LSB compatible. Is it? Why do we even care about this at
> > all?
>
> It is if you install redhat-lsb.
>
> The only intrinsic reason to care about LSB support is binary
> compatibility; Fedora broadly doesn
On 08/01/2012 10:21 AM, Richard Hughes wrote:
On 1 August 2012 10:47, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>Fedora is not LSB compatible. Is it? Why do we even care about this at
>all?
I think I can speak for most of the core GNOME desktop developers and
state that we don't care about LSB one little bit.
Good day all,
This weeks Fedora ARM status meeting will take place today (Wednesday Aug 1st)
in #fedora-meeting-1 on Freenode.
Times in various time zones (please let us know if these do not work):
PDT: 1pm
MDT: 2pm
CDT: 3pm
EDT: 4pm
UTC: 8pm
BST: 9pm
CST: 10pm
Current items on the agenda:
1)
On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 6:19 PM, Paul Whalen wrote:
> Good day all,
>
> This weeks Fedora ARM status meeting will take place today (Wednesday Aug
> 1st) in #fedora-meeting-1 on Freenode.
> Times in various time zones (please let us know if these do not work):
>
> PDT: 1pm
> MDT: 2pm
> CDT: 3pm
> E
On 08/01/2012 04:48 PM, Nicola Soranzo wrote:
bcfg2-server
I dont think it's necessary for it to depend on redhat-lsb-desktop
anymore since that package has move to using unit files instead..
JBG
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/lis
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840288
--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System ---
perlbrew-0.46-1.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 stable repository. If
problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=841133
--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System ---
perl-DBD-Pg-2.19.2-1.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 stable repository.
If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on
On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 12:53 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> There are still about half a dozen packages left that failed the recent
> mass rebuild because they contain source-code dependencies on obsolete
> versions of libpng and/or libtiff. I've filed patches to fix them,
> but don't have permissions to
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845057
Paul Howarth changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||perl-devel@lists.fedoraproj
On Wed, 2012-08-01 at 11:17 -0500, Richard Shaw wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 10:37 AM, Kamil Paral wrote:
> > Something like this? [1] [2]
>
> Yup! Something a lot like that! I did look over the AutoQA wiki before
> posting but didn't know enough about rpmguard to know that where I
> needed to
Tom Callaway writes:
> On 08/01/2012 10:03 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> What this means, IMO, is that we need to split out libpng12 as a
>> separate package. The current hack that I'm using (bundling 1.2 and 1.5
>> into a single SRPM) was never meant to be more than a very short-term
>> stopgap; I'm su
Here are the latest set of changes to the Fedora Packaging Guidelines:
---
A new section has been added to the SysV Initscripts section, discussing
the proper use of subsys locking. Even though Fedora packages should no
longer be using SysV Initscripts as a primary service mechanism, Red Hat
Ente
On Qua, 2012-08-01 at 00:36 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> I wrote:
> > I'm looking into these:
> >
> > Bill Nottingham wrote:
> >> Package komparator (fails to build)
> >> Package krecipes (fails to build)
> >> Package qalculate-kde (fails to build)
> >> Package tesseract (fails to build)
>
> I f
Good day all,
Thanks to those who were able to join us for the weekly status meeting today.
For those that were unable, the minutes are posted below:
Minutes:
http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2012-08-01/fedora-meeting-1.2012-08-01-20.01.html
Minutes (text):
http://meetbot.fedo
- 元のメッセージ -
| Our default font set for most languages, DejaVu, ships carefully
| designed
| hinting bytecode written specifically for FreeType's bytecode
| interpreter,
| and its designers explicitly ask for it to be used rather than the
| autohinter. (Some people dislike the font's look wi
Where would you like bug reports?
I tried it against one of my own review tickets. It found a number of
issues however almost all of them except one was wrong.
For example it complained of no clean section with a rm -rf %{buildroot}
which the specfile contained, same message except in the ins
On Wed, 2012-08-01 at 23:52 -0600, Nathanael D. Noblet wrote:
> Where would you like bug reports?
>
> I tried it against one of my own review tickets. It found a number of
> issues however almost all of them except one was wrong.
>
> For example it complained of no clean section with a rm -rf %{
44 matches
Mail list logo
