Mark Bidewell wrote:
> Here is the setup we have.
> 1) An RPM which creates a raw JBoss install
> 2) An RPM which sets up a specialized server config (based on the
> default config from 1) with common configuration
> 3) RPMs containing WARs (and configuration).
And how do those packages depend on
On 12/02/2012 03:46 AM, Mark Bidewell wrote:
On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 10:54 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Fri, 2012-11-30 at 17:24 +0100, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
Le Ven 30 novembre 2012 15:11, Mark Bidewell a écrit :
I have been working on packaging software into RPMs for my company.
These
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=883277
Petr Pisar changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED
Fixed In Version
On 12/04/2012 04:59 AM, Peter Hutterer wrote:
On Mon, Dec 03, 2012 at 09:20:05AM +0200, Panu Matilainen wrote:
On 12/02/2012 10:57 PM, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
On Sun, Dec 2, 2012 at 12:38 AM, Sérgio Basto wrote:
system-config-keyboard should do this:
1. Get the old settings: cat /etc/sys
On 12/04/2012 01:59 AM, Orion Poplawski wrote:
Looks like some packages make use of:
%doc --parents Copyright.txt README.html vtkLogo.jpg vtkBanner.gif
Wrapping/*/README*
To pass "--parents" to the cp command. This appears to no longer work:
Executing(%doc): /bin/sh -e /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.SeYbFF
On 12/01/2012 02:26 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Fri, 2012-11-30 at 12:21 -0500, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 05:42:15AM -0500, Marcela Maslanova wrote:
I think we do need more clarity on "system-wide/defaults changing
features or critical path components". What's the threshol
On 11/29/2012 05:47 PM, Sérgio Basto wrote:
4- use yum but I have bad memories from FC2 about use yum for upgrade
Try scripted version of yum-upgrade, where all possible hick-ups should
be addressed:
https://github.com/xsuchy/fedora-upgrade
--
Miroslav Suchy
Red Hat Systems Management Engine
> Affected Voters:
> - Do you vote on blocker status in bug comments?
If necessary, but I don't like it much. In my experience the discussion in the
meeting is often very helpful to understand the nature of the bug, and it can
shift my opinion substantially.
Also I don't like spamming bugzilla
Compose started at Tue Dec 4 09:15:31 UTC 2012
New package: brewtarget-1.2.5-4.fc18
An open source beer recipe creation tool
Removed package: mod_auth_shadow-2.3-2.fc18
Removed package: uxlaunch-0.56-8.fc18
Updated Packages:
RBTools-0.4.2-1.fc18
* Fri
On Tue, Dec 04, 2012 at 10:52:06 +0200,
Panu Matilainen wrote:
The ancient rpm on CentOS 5 doesn't know how to order erasures, no
amount of fiddling with dependencies can cure that. This also has
little to do with Fedora development...
In a thread that wandered off list I pointed the orig
On 2012-12-04 02:08, Ankur Sinha wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> I recently packaged octave-odepkg[1] reviewed and approved for fedora.
> I've been able to build it for both f18 and f17, but the rawhide builds
> keep failing because of what looks like a broken dep chain:
>
> INFO: Results and/or logs in: /v
Just a quick heads-up, kde-sig will be working to import kde-4.9.90
(4.10beta2) into rawhide over the course of this week. Feel free to
poke me or any other kde-sig member in #fedora-devel or #fedora-kde if
you encounter anything out-of-sorts related to this.
thanks.
-- rex
_
On 12/04/2012 08:38 AM, Fedora Branched Report wrote:
> Compose started at Tue Dec 4 09:15:31 UTC 2012
VICTORY! NO BROKEN DEPS in Fedora 18!
Now, I ask you all, please, please. Help me keep it that way!
~tom
==
Fedora Project
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.f
On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 9:07 AM, Tom Callaway wrote:
> On 12/04/2012 08:38 AM, Fedora Branched Report wrote:
> > Compose started at Tue Dec 4 09:15:31 UTC 2012
>
> VICTORY! NO BROKEN DEPS in Fedora 18!
>
>
> Now, I ask you all, please, please. Help me keep it that way!
>
> ~tom
>
> ==
> Fedora
On Tue, Dec 04, 2012 at 10:07:15 -0500,
Tom Callaway wrote:
On 12/04/2012 08:38 AM, Fedora Branched Report wrote:
Compose started at Tue Dec 4 09:15:31 UTC 2012
VICTORY! NO BROKEN DEPS in Fedora 18!
Thanks for your work with this.
You inspired me to try to fix up some of the broken deps
On 12/04/2012 10:21 AM, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
>
> P.S. There is still some texlive brokenness in F18. If you have the
> latest texlive stuff installed and try to install db-latex it pulls in
> some old texlive stuff (that I think should be removed) that has file
> conflicts with the corresponding
On 12/04/2012 07:39 AM, José Matos wrote:
On 2012-12-04 02:08, Ankur Sinha wrote:
Hi folks,
I recently packaged octave-odepkg[1] reviewed and approved for fedora.
I've been able to build it for both f18 and f17, but the rawhide builds
keep failing because of what looks like a broken dep chain:
On 12/04/2012 07:07 AM, Tom Callaway wrote:
> On 12/04/2012 08:38 AM, Fedora Branched Report wrote:
>> Compose started at Tue Dec 4 09:15:31 UTC 2012
>
> VICTORY! NO BROKEN DEPS in Fedora 18!
>
> Now, I ask you all, please, please. Help me keep it that way!
Congratulations! Thank you, Tom! Th
On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 12:40 PM, Kalpa Welivitigoda wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 3:55 PM, Caterpillar
> wrote:
> > Il 23/11/2012 15:33, Johannes Lips ha scritto:
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> I am looking for a new freemind maintainer. I've stated the reason for
> >> this in this mail to java-devel
On Tue, Dec 04, 2012 at 10:44:11 -0500,
Tom Callaway wrote:
On 12/04/2012 10:21 AM, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
P.S. There is still some texlive brokenness in F18. If you have the
latest texlive stuff installed and try to install db-latex it pulls in
some old texlive stuff (that I think should be
On 12/04/2012 10:58 AM, John Reiser wrote:
> On 12/04/2012 07:07 AM, Tom Callaway wrote:
>> On 12/04/2012 08:38 AM, Fedora Branched Report wrote:
>>> Compose started at Tue Dec 4 09:15:31 UTC 2012
>>
>> VICTORY! NO BROKEN DEPS in Fedora 18!
>>
>> Now, I ask you all, please, please. Help me keep it
I posted about this a couple of days ago to the test list; but I've gotten no
response so I'm fishing here.
I'm not sure if this is a genuine freeze; but I have not managed to elicit a
response to keyboard/mouse input.
When booting Fedora 18 Beta, I see this:
> dracut-cmdline[121]: /etc/locale
Hello,
per https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing#License_Changes
...
the "passwd" package has contained
License: BSD or GPLv2+
however, there is no "version 2 or later" clause in any of the
copyright notices. So I've just updated it to
License: BSD or GPL+
and will build
On 12/04/2012 09:32 AM, Tom Callaway wrote:
If you're building an update for Fedora, and it has shared libraries or
versioned provides, look to see if any of the shared library versions
have changed (or if the versioned provides have changed).
I'm wondering if it wouldn't be a good idea in the
On Tue, Dec 04, 2012 at 06:09:52PM +0100, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
> the "passwd" package has contained
> License: BSD or GPLv2+
> however, there is no "version 2 or later" clause in any of the
> copyright notices. So I've just updated it to
> License: BSD or GPL+
> and will build this in F18 and
On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 7:00 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 04, 2012 at 06:09:52PM +0100, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
>> the "passwd" package has contained
>> License: BSD or GPLv2+
>> however, there is no "version 2 or later" clause in any of the
>> copyright notices. So I've just updated it
On Tue, 2012-12-04 at 08:22 -0500, Kamil Paral wrote:
> > Affected Voters:
> > - Do you vote on blocker status in bug comments?
>
> If necessary, but I don't like it much. In my experience the
> discussion in the meeting is often very helpful to understand the
> nature of the bug, and it can shif
On Tue, Dec 04, 2012 at 07:09:29PM +0100, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
> > From the COPYING file, it looks like the actual intention is to license
> > under a BSD license with an exception for converting to GPL. But, Since the
> > three-clause BSD license is used, it's my understanding that that's not
> >
On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 08:29:52 -0500,
Martin Preisler wrote:
Hi,
I want to push Ogre 1.8.1 into rawhide next week. This will most likely break some packages
but we have a lots and lots of time to fix it all up in rawhide. The changes in Ogre API
aren't extensive enough for this to be a rea
On Mon, 03 Dec 2012 19:34:12 -0800
Adam Williamson wrote:
> > Anyhow, helpful thoughts would be appreciated. Hopefully we can
> > improve the process so that it's less painful for everyone and
> > maybe even more useful (at the very least, less difficult to
> > understand).
>
> I don't want to
On Dec 4, 2012, at 11:51 AM, Tim Flink wrote:
>
> I think the best evidence of this is the number of bugs which get
> proposed as blockers or NTH without any justification of why or citing
> of any release criterion that might be violated. I take that as "the
> process isn't being communicated
Some weeks ago libcdio 0.90 has been released. In addition to the
libcdio-0.90 release there have been parts split off into a separate
package called libcdio-paranoia. libcdio-paranoia has been imported and
I will now also update libcdio to 0.90 in rawhide. I will rebuild all
dependencies over the
On Tue, Dec 04, 2012 at 10:51:17AM -0700, Orion Poplawski wrote:
> On 12/04/2012 09:32 AM, Tom Callaway wrote:
> >If you're building an update for Fedora, and it has shared libraries or
> >versioned provides, look to see if any of the shared library versions
> >have changed (or if the versioned pro
On Tue, 4 Dec 2012 08:22:12 -0500 (EST)
Kamil Paral wrote:
> > Affected Voters:
> > - Do you vote on blocker status in bug comments?
>
> If necessary, but I don't like it much. In my experience the
> discussion in the meeting is often very helpful to understand the
> nature of the bug, and it c
On Tue, 2012-12-04 at 12:10 -0700, Chris Murphy wrote:
> On Dec 4, 2012, at 11:51 AM, Tim Flink wrote:
>
> >
> > I think the best evidence of this is the number of bugs which get
> > proposed as blockers or NTH without any justification of why or citing
> > of any release criterion that might be
On 2012-12-04 20:30, Jindrich Novy wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 04, 2012 at 10:51:17AM -0700, Orion Poplawski wrote:
>>
>> I'm wondering if it wouldn't be a good idea in the packaging
>> guidelines to suggest that people list the shared libraries in the
>> %files section like:
>>
>> %{_libdir}/libname.so.#
On Ter, 2012-12-04 at 11:14 +0100, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> On 11/29/2012 05:47 PM, Sérgio Basto wrote:
> > 4- use yum but I have bad memories from FC2 about use yum for upgrade
basically , I spend many hours to update it :)
> Try scripted version of yum-upgrade, where all possible hick-ups shoul
# F18 Final Blocker Review meeting #2
# Date: 2012-12-05
# Time: 17:00 UTC (12:00 EST, 09:00 PST)
# Location: #fedora-bugzappers on irc.freenode.net
We're still working to get the proposed blocker list down to something
manageable, so it would be time for another blocker review meeting!
Note the I
Hi
On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 2:35 PM, Ville Skyttä wrote:
> IMO if a maintainer of a shared lib package goes as far as submitting a
> koji build without noticing a soname bump in it, the maintainer should
> seriously consider stepping aside and finding someone else to take
> proper care of the pack
Following is the list of topics that will be discussed in the FESCo
meeting Wednesday at 17:00UTC (1:00pm EDT, 19:00 CEST) in #fedora-meeting on
irc.freenode.net.
Links to all tickets below can be found at:
https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/report/9
= Followups =
#topic #896 Refine Feature process
40 matches
Mail list logo
