-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 12/20/2012 12:04 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-12-20 at 00:06 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>> Adam Williamson wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 2012-12-19 at 18:30 +0100, Miloslav Trma? wrote:
Probably
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Feature
Thanks Andreas! Very interesting indeed!
Mario
On 18 December 2012 20:28, Andreas Tille wrote:
> Hi Mario,
>
> On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 06:04:24PM +0100, Mario Ceresa wrote:
>> Hi, I'm packaging OpenIGTLink (http://openigtlink.org/) and I'd like
>> to swap reviews:
>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/
Hi everybody,
According to Ruby 2.0 release schedule:
- code freeze: 23 Dec.
- 2.0.0-rc1 release: 1W Jan. (expected)
- 2.0.0-rc2 release: 1W Feb. (expected)
- 2.0.0-p0 release: 24 Feb.
the official release date is quickly approaching. Therefore, I would
like to update you about current
Compose started at Thu Dec 20 09:17:45 UTC 2012
Broken deps for x86_64
--
[python-fedmsg-meta-fedora-infrastructure]
python-fedmsg-meta-fedora-infrastructure-0.0.3-1.fc18.noarch requires
fedmsg >= 0:0.6.1
Broken deps for i386
commit f3facd08c6858656bd55b9873f924c9602ab1078
Author: Petr Šabata
Date: Thu Dec 20 14:53:59 2012 +0100
1.402 bump
.gitignore |1 +
perl-SQL-Statement.spec |7 +--
sources |2 +-
3 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
---
diff --git
On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 01:54:57AM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 11:56:36PM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>
> > Yuck! I really don't see why we should be granting this type of exceptions.
> > libexec and share exist for a reason. Helper binaries need to be in
> > libexec,
On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 10:58:39PM +0100, Mario Blättermann wrote:
> Am Mittwoch, 19. Dezember 2012, 14:30:53 schrieb Neil Horman:
> > Hey all-
> > I've got this package I'm trying to get reviewed:
> > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=884291
> >
> > Will to swap for it if anyone is
On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 02:09:19PM -0700, Orion Poplawski wrote:
> On 12/19/2012 12:30 PM, Neil Horman wrote:
> >Hey all-
> > I've got this package I'm trying to get reviewed:
> >https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=884291
> >
> >Will to swap for it if anyone is interested.
>
>
> How c
On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 11:56 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Tomas Mraz wrote:
>> * AGREED: 1. systemd is granted an exception to put helper
>> applications in /usr/lib/systemd (t8m, 19:03:17)
>> * AGREED: 2. the systemd unit files of all the packages are granted an
>> exception to be unde
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865623
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ON_QA |CLOSED
Re
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865623
--- Comment #3 from Fedora Update System ---
perl-AnyEvent-XMPP-0.53-1.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 stable
repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.
--
You are receiving this mai
Le Jeu 20 décembre 2012 02:54, Matthew Garrett a écrit :
> On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 11:56:36PM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>
>> Yuck! I really don't see why we should be granting this type of
>> exceptions.
>> libexec and share exist for a reason. Helper binaries need to be in
>> libexec,
>> unit fi
Le Mer 19 décembre 2012 20:46, Reindl Harald a écrit :
>
>
> Am 19.12.2012 20:26, schrieb Chris Murphy:
>>
>> On Dec 19, 2012, at 12:05 PM, Reindl Harald
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> and i would file a bug if something pulls samba-client as
>>> dependency - there are still WAY too much useless dependenci
Le Mer 19 décembre 2012 20:26, Chris Murphy a écrit :
>
> On Dec 19, 2012, at 12:05 PM, Reindl Harald
> wrote:
>
>>
>> and i would file a bug if something pulls samba-client as
>> dependency - there are still WAY too much useless dependencies
>> like colord and i refuse to accept more of them!
>
Le Mer 19 décembre 2012 22:57, Lennart Poettering a écrit :
> On Mon, 03.12.12 10:04, Vratislav Podzimek (vpodz...@redhat.com) wrote:
>
>> The "conversion" (as systemd-localed calls it) works really poorly also
>> for the Czech keymaps/layouts. 'cz' X11 layout is "converted" to
>> 'cz-lat2' which
Hi,
On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 1:05 PM, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
>
> If you really want to support console keyboard layouts in systemd, you
> need to start generating console layouts from xkb-config, not adopt the
> old anaconda mapping bandaid
>
Can you file a bug report against Anaconda and syst
Le Jeu 20 décembre 2012 19:32, Rahul Sundaram a écrit :
> Hi,
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 1:05 PM, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
>
>>
>> If you really want to support console keyboard layouts in systemd, you
>> need to start generating console layouts from xkb-config, not adopt the
>> old anaconda map
Nicolas Mailhot (nicolas.mail...@laposte.net) said:
> If you really want to support console keyboard layouts in systemd, you
> need to start generating console layouts from xkb-config, not adopt the
> old anaconda mapping bandaid
There's already a bug for this, but the runtime perl dependencies i
On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 02:28:48PM +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 01:54:57AM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 11:56:36PM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> >
> > > Yuck! I really don't see why we should be granting this type of
> > > exceptions.
> >
Le Jeu 20 décembre 2012 20:04, Bill Nottingham a écrit :
> Nicolas Mailhot (nicolas.mail...@laposte.net) said:
>> If you really want to support console keyboard layouts in systemd, you
>> need to start generating console layouts from xkb-config, not adopt the
>> old anaconda mapping bandaid
>
> Th
Dear all,
I've submitted an update to LCM for EL5 and EL6:
* https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/lcm-0.9.2-1.el5
* https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/lcm-0.9.2-1.el6
While 0.9.2 doesn't bring any 'proffit' to Linux users, 0.9.1 does, specially:
- add --flush-interval option to perio
2012/12/20 Charles Bennett
> Thanks for the redirect. I've taken it to the rpmfusion folks.
>
> ccb
>
> Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Jiri Moskovcak wrote:
> > - not sure if this is the right ml
>
> It's not. ;-)
>
> > kmod-nvidia is definitely not in the official Fedora repos, it's in
> > rpmfusion
>
On Qui, 2012-12-20 at 20:16 +0100, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> IIRC, an anaconda bug already exists (don't remember the number, I do
> remember answering some questions Mismo asked about the Debian system
> there)
I need the number
Thanks ,
--
Sérgio M. B.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fed
On 19 December 2012 19:46, Reindl Harald wrote:
> as example the colord crap pulls X11 deps on
> servers because you install Imagemagick which is a COMMANDLINE
> tool in the first front
It does? That's a bug if that's true. colord is the simple mapping
daemon and doesn't know anything about X. Fi
On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 08:54:19PM +, Richard Hughes wrote:
> > as example the colord crap pulls X11 deps on
> > servers because you install Imagemagick which is a COMMANDLINE
> > tool in the first front
> It does? That's a bug if that's true. colord is the simple mapping
> daemon and doesn't k
On Dec 20, 2012, at 10:41 AM, Nicolas Mailhot
wrote:
>
> Le Mer 19 décembre 2012 20:26, Chris Murphy a écrit :
>>
>>
>> If you have a b&w display and only b&w printers, then colord would still
>> enable something useful. But I suspect you have at least one color
>> display.
>
> colord is no
On Qua, 2012-12-19 at 08:05 +1000, Peter Hutterer wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 09:38:24PM +, Sérgio Basto wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > 1 - Here:
> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Input_device_configuration#system-setup-keyboard
> >
> > we need update this because:
> > Command system-setup-key
On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 04:08:27PM -0500, Matthew Miller wrote:
> Anyway, it is true that there is some dep chain from installing ImageMagick
> on a bare server which brings in colord, libX11, libwayland-client and
> -server, and more. However, I don't think colord is to blame -- it just adds
> col
Am 20.12.2012 18:40, schrieb Nicolas Mailhot:
>
> Le Mer 19 décembre 2012 20:46, Reindl Harald a écrit :
>> the point is that optional features should never be a hard
>> dependency - as example the colord crap pulls X11 deps on
>> servers because you install Imagemagick which is a COMMANDLINE
>>
Am 20.12.2012 21:54, schrieb Richard Hughes:
> On 19 December 2012 19:46, Reindl Harald wrote:
>> as example the colord crap pulls X11 deps on
>> servers because you install Imagemagick which is a COMMANDLINE
>> tool in the first front
>
> It does? That's a bug if that's true. colord is the sim
Have you ever want to get your Amateur Radio License or Upgrade here is
your chance at Fudcon Lawrence.
For the Second NA Fudcon we are pleased to offer a ARRL Test Session on
Saturday Jan 19th 10am -2PM in Learned Hall University of Kansas
There is a $15 cost to take the exam. (This Fee goe
On Dec 20, 2012, at 10:50 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
>
> Am 20.12.2012 18:40, schrieb Nicolas Mailhot:
>>
>> Le Mer 19 décembre 2012 20:46, Reindl Harald a écrit :
>>> the point is that optional features should never be a hard
>>> dependency - as example the colord crap pulls X11 deps on
>>>
Am 20.12.2012 22:47, schrieb Matthew Miller:
> On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 04:08:27PM -0500, Matthew Miller wrote:
>> Anyway, it is true that there is some dep chain from installing ImageMagick
>> on a bare server which brings in colord, libX11, libwayland-client and
>> -server, and more. However, I
On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 12:02:22PM -0800, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> The effect of this is:
>
> FPC will write into the Guidelines (probably where libexec is mentioned
> since that's where the note about being able to use %{_libdir} as an
> alternative to %{_libexecdir} is ) that the systemd helper
On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 11:16:18PM +0100, Reindl Harald wrote:
> > ImageMagick itself pulls in a bunch of stuff directly, including X11 libs,
> > which makes sense because it includes utilities which are X clients.
> > Possibly the chain could be broken by packinging some utilities like
> > `displa
On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 10:30:37PM +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> Thanks, but I think the bit I'm mising is why can't systemd use
> libexec? (Apart from their declaration that libexec is wrong or not
> the de-facto standard they themselves made up, which is not a reason).
Because libexec doe
On Dec 20, 2012 3:16 PM, "Richard W.M. Jones" wrote:
>
> On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 12:02:22PM -0800, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> > The effect of this is:
> >
> > FPC will write into the Guidelines (probably where libexec is mentioned
> > since that's where the note about being able to use %{_libdir} as
On Thu, 20.12.12 12:02, Toshio Kuratomi (a.bad...@gmail.com) wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 02:28:48PM +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 01:54:57AM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > > On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 11:56:36PM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> > >
> > > > Yuck! I
On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 04:05:36PM -0800, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> As I said in the meeting, libexec is somewhat of a red herring here. The
> packaging guidelines already allow substituting subdirs of %_libdir for
> %_libexecdir. What's in question is being able to use /usr/lib for arch
> specifi
On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 04:05:36PM -0800, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> On Dec 20, 2012 3:16 PM, "Richard W.M. Jones" wrote:
> > Thanks, but I think the bit I'm mising is why can't systemd use
> > libexec? (Apart from their declaration that libexec is wrong or not
> > the de-facto standard they themse
On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 01:06:13AM +0100, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> On Thu, 20.12.12 12:02, Toshio Kuratomi (a.bad...@gmail.com) wrote:
>
> >
> > FPC will write into the Guidelines (probably where libexec is mentioned
> > since that's where the note about being able to use %{_libdir} as an
> >
On 12/20/2012 03:30 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 12:02:22PM -0800, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
The effect of this is:
FPC will write into the Guidelines (probably where libexec is mentioned
since that's where the note about being able to use %{_libdir} as an
alternative to %
On Thu, 2012-12-20 at 17:50 -0800, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> > Just making systemd the exception sounds like chickening out from the
> > real solution which is to end this Fedoraism.
> >
> Well really it's us not wanting to fight to make you do the right thing any
> longer. If you want us to take
On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 07:05:52PM -0700, Orion Poplawski wrote:
> Shouldn't they be in /usr/share/systemd?
The helper binaries? No. The unit files? They need to be in / rather
than /usr, which obviously isn't a problem for Fedora but would be on
some other distributions.
--
Matthew Garrett |
On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 1:06 AM, Lennart Poettering
wrote:
> declare
> that lib/ is the place for package-specific stuff and
> share/ the place that is shared between packages.
If this is supposed to be within current FHS (and not a proposal to
abandon it), the above is a gross misunderstanding o
On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 06:07:58PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-12-20 at 17:50 -0800, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
>
> > > Just making systemd the exception sounds like chickening out from the
> > > real solution which is to end this Fedoraism.
> > >
> > Well really it's us not wanting
On Thu, 2012-12-20 at 18:48 -0800, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 06:07:58PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > On Thu, 2012-12-20 at 17:50 -0800, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> >
> > > > Just making systemd the exception sounds like chickening out from the
> > > > real solution which i
On Thu, 2012-12-20 at 18:54 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> A systemd-specific exception works for systemd, fine, but it doesn't
> really seem to address the root problem.
To further elaborate: the 'root problem', it seems to me, is that this
'Fedoraism' as Lennart calls it results in one of two
On Thu, 2012-12-20 at 19:05 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-12-20 at 18:54 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
>
> > A systemd-specific exception works for systemd, fine, but it doesn't
> > really seem to address the root problem.
>
> To further elaborate: the 'root problem', it seems to m
On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 06:54:24PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> It seemed perfectly clear from context that what Lennart was arguing is
> that the guidelines should be changed and we should stop using
> this /usr/libexec directory which no-one outside of RH-derived distros
> has adopted, and whi
On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 07:05:20PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > A systemd-specific exception works for systemd, fine, but it doesn't
> > really seem to address the root problem.
> To further elaborate: the 'root problem', it seems to me, is that this
> 'Fedoraism' as Lennart calls it results i
On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 4:05 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-12-20 at 18:54 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
>
>> A systemd-specific exception works for systemd, fine, but it doesn't
>> really seem to address the root problem.
>
> To further elaborate: the 'root problem', it seems to me, is
On Fri, 2012-12-21 at 04:22 +0100, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 4:05 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > On Thu, 2012-12-20 at 18:54 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> >
> >> A systemd-specific exception works for systemd, fine, but it doesn't
> >> really seem to address the root proble
On Thu, 20 Dec 2012 13:47:56 +0100
Vít Ondruch wrote:
> Hi everybody,
...snip...
>- Due to better integration of JRuby into Fedora [3], we would
> like to take this opportunity to restructure RubyGems folder
> layout. This should allow us to support Rubinius in the future
> as well.
>
On Thu, 20 Dec 2012 19:10:45 -0800
Adam Williamson wrote:
> Hm, I missed the point that the exception is for lib/foo vs.
> %libdir/foo (arched vs. non-arched). That makes it a more complex
> three-way argument. But I think the point about libexecdir being
> pointless still stands.
IMHO, libexecd
On Thu, 20 Dec 2012, Adam Williamson wrote:
All this for the rather questionable benefit of having a specifically
defined place for helper-scripts-not-meant-to-be-executed-directly,
which gains us...what, exactly, over just putting them
in /usr/lib/(appname) or /usr/share/(appname) or whatever?
On Thu, 2012-12-20 at 23:01 -0500, Paul Wouters wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Dec 2012, Adam Williamson wrote:
>
> > All this for the rather questionable benefit of having a specifically
> > defined place for helper-scripts-not-meant-to-be-executed-directly,
> > which gains us...what, exactly, over just put
On 12/21/2012 12:27 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 10:30:37PM +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
Thanks, but I think the bit I'm mising is why can't systemd use
libexec? (Apart from their declaration that libexec is wrong or not
the de-facto standard they themselves made up,
On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 05:38:17AM +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> I disagree. systemd simply hasn't taken libexecdir into account in
> its design and now is trying to propagate their oversight/mistake as
> "standard" instead of making their works compliant with _our_
> distro's demands.
libexec d
On 12/21/2012 01:15 AM, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 04:05:36PM -0800, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
As I said in the meeting, libexec is somewhat of a red herring here. The
packaging guidelines already allow substituting subdirs of %_libdir for
%_libexecdir. What's in question is be
On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 08:57:58PM -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> IMHO, libexecdir is not part of this at all... we already have:
>
> "If upstream's build scripts support the use of %{_libexecdir} then
> that is the most appropriate place to configure it (eg. passing
> --libexecdir=%{libexecdir}/%{n
On 12/21/2012 05:54 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 05:38:17AM +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
I disagree. systemd simply hasn't taken libexecdir into account in
its design and now is trying to propagate their oversight/mistake as
"standard" instead of making their works complia
On Fri, 2012-12-21 at 06:09 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On 12/21/2012 05:54 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 05:38:17AM +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> >
> >> I disagree. systemd simply hasn't taken libexecdir into account in
> >> its design and now is trying to propagate th
On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 06:09:10AM +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On 12/21/2012 05:54 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> >On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 05:38:17AM +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> >
> >>I disagree. systemd simply hasn't taken libexecdir into account in
> >>its design and now is trying to propagat
On 12/21/2012 06:16 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Fri, 2012-12-21 at 06:09 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 12/21/2012 05:54 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 05:38:17AM +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
I disagree. systemd simply hasn't taken libexecdir into account in
its design
On 12/21/2012 06:36 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 06:09:10AM +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 12/21/2012 05:54 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 05:38:17AM +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
I disagree. systemd simply hasn't taken libexecdir into account in
its
On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 07:16:12AM +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On 12/21/2012 06:36 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> >So?
>
> Next the FHS, it is one of the fundamental "standards", which define
> the basis of all packaging works on Linux/GNU and thus also the FPG.
No, it defines the GNU project's
-Toshio
On Dec 20, 2012 7:05 PM, "Adam Williamson" wrote:
>
> On Thu, 2012-12-20 at 18:54 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
>
> > A systemd-specific exception works for systemd, fine, but it doesn't
> > really seem to address the root problem.
>
> To further elaborate: the 'root problem', it seems to
- Original Message -
> On Thu, 20 Dec 2012 13:47:56 +0100
> Vít Ondruch wrote:
>
> > Hi everybody,
>
> ...snip...
>
> >- Due to better integration of JRuby into Fedora [3], we would
> > like to take this opportunity to restructure RubyGems folder
> > layout. This should allow u
On Thu, 2012-12-20 at 23:24 -0800, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> Since neither of these things are required by the packaging
> guidelines, I believe the premise of your argument is deeply flawed.
> 1) As i've said before, there is no packaging guideline requirement
> that maintainers restrict helper
On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 11:24:09PM -0800, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> 2) the systemd exceptions allows placing files in %{_prefix}/lib rather
> than %{_libdir} (the exceptions allow both putting the helper apps in there
> which would generally be okay with just a multilib exception and the unit
> fil
71 matches
Mail list logo
