kannel failed to BFS because texlive does have a bug (dependency) problem:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=995752
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 02:59:20PM -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> 2) The fedora-release-$PRODUCT package (and possibly %post or systemd
> snippets therein) will be responsible for the creation and maintenance
> of /etc/issue, /etc/os-release and /etc/fedora-release-product (note:
> there is no $
On 07/01/2014 11:31 AM, Marcela Maslanova wrote:
Env and Stacks Working Group has noble plan to make development in
Fedora easier and also work with new technologies, which are not in
Fedora yet.
The whole statement can be found here:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Env_and_Stacks/Product_Require
On 06/30/2014 06:51 PM, Marcela Mašláňová wrote:
On odd weeks WG meeting will be at 15:00 UTC, 17:00 Central Europe,
11:00 (noon) Boston, 8:00 San Francisco, 0:00 Tokyo in #fedora-meeting
on Freenode.
= Topics =
* free seats in Env WG
* Taskotron and rpmgrill
* OpenFloor
Meeting cancelled for
On 06/25/2014 06:55 PM, Christian Schaller wrote:
Hi everyone,
As we are ramping up the development effort around the workstation we wanted to
help increase transparency and enable more community participation in the
Fedora Workstation
effort by providing a more detailed view of the various tas
I'd like to take these 3:
bitbakeixs
guile-lib laxathom
rats smilner, rmonk
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraprojec
Hi Petr,
> The rebuilds run in koji. You cannot get scratch build into koji build
> root. You would need separate koji build target tag for that.
I understood that Koschei does it anyway (to be able to rebuild the
dependency subtree). Either way, it doesn't sound problematic to create
temporary t
Where I can read more about weak dependencies?
--
-Igor Gnatenko
On Jun 27, 2014 7:38 PM, "Panu Matilainen" wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> Rpm 4.12 alpha just got released: http://lists.rpm.org/
> pipermail/rpm-announce/2014-June/45.html
>
> The plan is to update rawhide to this shiny new version fir
Hi,
I was wondering if there's a standard way of solving package conflicts
that arise from arch specific doc files. An example is here:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=565676
The conflict is because the docs are generated during the build, and the
files, even though they are installe
On Wed, Jul 02, 2014 at 10:38:15AM +0200, Karel Zak wrote:
> Note that agetty(8) allows to keep /etc/issue distribution
> independent and it reads all necessary information from
> /etc/os-release to generate the final pre-login message. All you need
> is to create /etc/issue with \S sequences,
- Original Message -
> On Wed, Jul 02, 2014 at 10:38:15AM +0200, Karel Zak wrote:
> > It would be really really nice have only *one* file (/etc/os-release)
> > that contains operating system identification data. The mess like
> > /etc/fedora-release and /etc/redhat-release should be depr
- Original Message -
> From: jpac...@redhat.com
> To: devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Sent: Tuesday, July 1, 2014 5:41:45 PM
> Subject: Re: Koschei - continuous rebuilds for packages
>
> Hi Michael,
>
> it sounds like a way how one could automatically handle library so-bumps
> in rawhid
On 07/02/2014 03:05 PM, Igor Gnatenko wrote:
> Where I can read more about weak dependencies?
Have a look at my announcement I made in February:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2014-February/195743.html
Be aware that rpm-4.12 only implements the weak dependencies. Having
support
On 2014-07-02, jpac...@redhat.com wrote:
>> The rebuilds run in koji. You cannot get scratch build into koji build
>> root. You would need separate koji build target tag for that.
>
> I understood that Koschei does it anyway (to be able to rebuild the
> dependency subtree).
Speculation: Or it doe
Doesn't the current process assume that xz always produces the same
output?
What would happen if a newer version of xz/lzma comes out which (for
example) produces better compressed output while still remaining
compatible with the file format and older decompression tools?
Rich.
--
Richard Jones
On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 03:44:26PM -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 06/30/2014 03:39 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> > On Mon, 30.06.14 14:59, Stephen Gallagher (sgall...@redhat.com)
> > wrote:
> >
> >> 2) The fedora-release-$PRODUCT package
This has already happened once before a few years back. IIRC, we
updated xz on the builder to match the one in Fedora, but our users had
broken deltarpms until they got the updated xz.
Jonathan
On 07/02/2014 07:46 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
Doesn't the current process assume that xz alway
On 07/02/2014 03:15 PM, Ankur Sinha wrote:
> I was wondering if there's a standard way of solving package conflicts
> that arise from arch specific doc files. An example is here:
>
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=565676
>
> The conflict is because the docs are generated during the b
Am 02.07.2014 16:46, schrieb Richard W.M. Jones:
> Doesn't the current process assume that xz always
> produces the same output?
hopefully not
> What would happen if a newer version of xz/lzma comes out which (for
> example) produces better compressed output while still remaining
> compatible
> Doesn't the current process assume that xz always produces the same
> output?
Yes, the deltarpm process depends on xz giving the same output
when run by the consumer of the .drpm as when run by the producer.
If not, then deltarpm gives a warning and ignores the .drpm --
the entire new .rpm must
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 02/28/2014 02:37 PM, Richard Hughes wrote:
> On 28 February 2014 15:38, Tomas Mraz wrote:
>> This should not break builds of any reasonably current software.
>
> libgcrypt.so.11()(64bit) is needed by (installed)
> google-chrome-stable-33.0.1750.1
On 07/02/2014 05:13 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> This is not an official solution, but I am now providing a COPR for
> Rawhide installs that provides a compatibility library for libgcrypt.
That's awesome, but can we get this in rawhide proper instead? I'd be
happy to help get this through the re
On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 11:19 PM, Kalev Lember wrote:
> On 07/02/2014 05:13 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
>> This is not an official solution, but I am now providing a COPR for
>> Rawhide installs that provides a compatibility library for libgcrypt.
>
> That's awesome, but can we get this in rawhide
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 07/02/2014 11:19 AM, Kalev Lember wrote:
> On 07/02/2014 05:13 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
>> This is not an official solution, but I am now providing a COPR
>> for Rawhide installs that provides a compatibility library for
>> libgcrypt.
>
> That'
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 07/02/2014 11:22 AM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> On 07/02/2014 11:19 AM, Kalev Lember wrote:
>> On 07/02/2014 05:13 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
>>> This is not an official solution, but I am now providing a
>>> COPR for Rawhide installs that provide
On Tue, Jul 01, 2014 at 07:55:42PM +0200, Till Maas wrote:
>
> The following packages are orphaned or did not build for two
> releases and will be retired when Fedora (F21) is branched, unless someone
> adopts them. If you know for sure that the package should be retired, please
> do
> so now wit
On 07/02/2014 05:24 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 07/02/2014 11:22 AM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
>> On 07/02/2014 11:19 AM, Kalev Lember wrote:
>>> On 07/02/2014 05:13 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
This is not an official solution, but I a
On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 12:03 AM, Kalev Lember wrote:
> Anyone here interested in maintaining a libgcrypt compat package for F21
> lifetime? I'd be happy to help sort out packaging and get this through
> the review process.
Have you got any response from Google actually?
--
devel mailing list
dev
On 07/02/2014 06:11 PM, Christopher Meng wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 12:03 AM, Kalev Lember wrote:
>> Anyone here interested in maintaining a libgcrypt compat package for F21
>> lifetime? I'd be happy to help sort out packaging and get this through
>> the review process.
>
> Have you got any
On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 12:22 AM, Kalev Lember wrote:
> You must be confusing me with someone else. I am not a libgcrypt
> maintainer and haven't talked to Google about this.
No.
It's a burden for downstream to ship such a compat- package for chrome
only, and chrome is not a part of Fedora.
http
On Thu, Jul 03, 2014 at 12:35:26AM +0800, Christopher Meng wrote:
> It's a burden for downstream to ship such a compat- package for chrome
> only, and chrome is not a part of Fedora.
Maintaining software in general is a burden, but we do it for the
benefit of our users anyway. The best case scen
On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 1:11 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 03, 2014 at 12:35:26AM +0800, Christopher Meng wrote:
>
>> It's a burden for downstream to ship such a compat- package for chrome
>> only, and chrome is not a part of Fedora.
>
> Maintaining software in general is a burden, but w
Please join us today (Wednesday, July 2nd) at 4PM EDT (8PM UTC)
for the Fedora ARM status meeting in #fedora-meeting-1 on Freenode.
On the agenda so far..
1) Kernel Status Update
2) F21 Alpha Status a) Deliverables (Installation methods)
b) Open ARM bugs
On Wed, Jul 02, 2014 at 09:47:26AM -0400, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
> - Original Message -
> > On Wed, Jul 02, 2014 at 10:38:15AM +0200, Karel Zak wrote:
> > > It would be really really nice have only *one* file (/etc/os-release)
> > > that contains operating system identification data. The m
On Thu, Jul 03, 2014 at 01:20:26AM +0800, Christopher Meng wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 1:11 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > Maintaining software in general is a burden, but we do it for the
> > benefit of our users anyway. The best case scenario would certainly be
> > for Google to update their
Following is the list of topics that will be discussed in the FPC
meeting Thursday at 2014-07-03 16:00 UTC in #fedora-meeting-1 on
irc.freenode.net.
Local time information (via. rktime):
2014-07-03 09:00 Thu US/Pacific PDT
2014-07-03 12:00 Thu US/Eastern EDT
2014-07-03 1
===
#fedora-meeting: FESCO (2014-07-02)
===
Meeting started by nirik at 17:00:27 UTC. The full logs are available at
http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2014-07-02/fesco.2014-07-02-17.00.log.html
.
Meeting summary
On Wed, Jul 02, 2014 at 06:03:33PM +0200, Kalev Lember wrote:
> On 07/02/2014 05:24 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> > On 07/02/2014 11:22 AM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> >> On 07/02/2014 11:19 AM, Kalev Lember wrote:
> >>> On 07/02/2014 05:13
Hello,
I would like to take over tinyca2.
I do not see anywhere on the list why the maintainers left it. So I'll
check the procedures and also other sources and take it.
According to Koji[1], some F21 build was successful last month so
hopefully there wont be many difficulties.
Sincerely
Peter
On Wed, Jul 02, 2014 at 12:38:10AM +0200, Sergio Pascual wrote:
> I thought I had retired correctly pywcs, but is not in the list. Did I miss
> some step?
The list contains only packages I am going to retire unless they are
taken care of. So if you retired a package, it is expected that the
packag
On Wed, Jul 02, 2014 at 06:49:23PM +0800, Christopher Meng wrote:
> I'd like to take these 3:
>
> bitbakeixs
> guile-lib laxathom
> rats smilner, rmonk
changed.
Regards
Till
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.or
On Tue, Jul 01, 2014 at 11:02:11PM +0200, مصعب الزعبي wrote:
> This commit add number after %{?dist} .. is this OK !!
>
> http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/gnulib.git/commit/?id=c2f0d77aba7a2b745886654c42c943f6a9c1a4b7
>
> See full package name
>
> http://fr2.rpmfind.net//linux/RPM/fedora/dev
On Wed, 2 Jul 2014, Peter Hanecak wrote:
I would like to take over tinyca2.
I do not see anywhere on the list why the maintainers left it. So I'll
check the procedures and also other sources and take it.
According to Koji[1], some F21 build was successful last month so
hopefully there wont be
Hello,
OK, than we found a bug, because:
a) Till Maas proclaimed it as orphaned in mail "[ACTION REQUIRED]
Retiring packages for Fedora 21 v3"
b) it was mentioned as "orphaned" also in
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/tinyca2/ (but IIRC only
for "devel" branch - maybe that's "the bu
Thanks to those that were able to join us for the status meeting today, for
those unable the minutes are posted below:
#fedora-meeting-1: Fedora ARM status meeting
Meeting summary
---
* 1) Ke
As discussed in the status meeting today, we will be moving to a biweekly
meeting in preparation for F21 Alpha.
Our next meeting will be held on July 16th, 2014 at 4PM EDT (8PM UTC).
Please send anything you would like discussed to the ARM mailing list.
Regards,
Paul
--
devel mailing list
On Wed, Jul 02, 2014 at 10:18:52PM +0200, Peter Hanecak wrote:
> b) it was mentioned as "orphaned" also in
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/tinyca2/ (but IIRC only
> for "devel" branch - maybe that's "the bug")
According to fedmsg, Paul never became owner of tinyca2 for the master
> First of all, I'd like to formally propose that each of the products
> will have a fedora-release-$PRODUCT (and corresponding
> generic-release-$PRODUCT) package. This package will meet several
> needs (with magical hand-waving in this initial email).
How will this work with fedup from 20 to 21
I would like to take this one:
espresso-aborphan, chitlesh
FAS ID: cheeselee
-robin
On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 3:48 AM, Till Maas wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 02, 2014 at 06:49:23PM +0800, Christopher Meng wrote:
> > I'd like to take these 3:
> >
> > bitbakeixs
On 07/02/2014 06:55 PM, William wrote:
First of all, I'd like to formally propose that each of the products
will have a fedora-release-$PRODUCT (and corresponding
generic-release-$PRODUCT) package. This package will meet several
needs (with magical hand-waving in this initial email).
How will
On Wed, 2014-07-02 at 20:40 -0700, Samuel Sieb wrote:
> On 07/02/2014 06:55 PM, William wrote:
> >
> >> First of all, I'd like to formally propose that each of the products
> >> will have a fedora-release-$PRODUCT (and corresponding
> >> generic-release-$PRODUCT) package. This package will meet sev
51 matches
Mail list logo
