On 4 June 2015 at 03:24, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> ndeed, you missed:
> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2014-March/196343.html
>
> libappindicator is now (since Fedora 22) also REQUIRED for GTK+ system tray
> applets to work under KDE Plasma. (Plasma 5 no longer supports the legacy
>
- Original Message -
> From: "Pekka Pietikäinen"
> To: "Development discussions related to Fedora"
>
> Sent: Friday, June 5, 2015 8:09:49 AM
> Subject: Re: fedora-easy-karma: InsecurePlatformWarning
>
> On 28/04/15 21:17, Cole Robinson wrote:
> > On 04/28/2015 01:32 PM, Reindl Harald
Hello,
Following up on the ABI checking topic raised in the "API Break
Detection" section near the end of the post
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/server/2015-June/001904.html,
I'd like to summarize where we stand at the moment and what we plan do.
We discussed this topic on the #fedora
Am 05.06.2015 um 10:29 schrieb Robert Kuska:
- Original Message -
From: "Pekka Pietikäinen"
Seems this is still unaddressed for quite some time.
Not really "busted", it just (rightly) complains that it's being used
with a version of Python (2.7.8) that makes proper use of SSL impossib
Compose started at Fri Jun 5 05:15:04 UTC 2015
Broken deps for i386
--
[RepetierHost]
RepetierHost-0.90D-2.fc21.noarch requires mono(mscorlib) = 0:2.0.0.0
RepetierHost-0.90D-2.fc21.noarch requires mono(System.Xml) = 0:2.0.0.0
On Fri, 2015-06-05 at 10:34 +0200, Dodji Seketeli wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Following up on the ABI checking topic raised in the "API Break
> Detection" section near the end of the post
> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/server/2015
> -June/001904.html,
> I'd like to summarize where we stand at
On Wed, 2015-06-03 at 19:11 +0800, Christopher Meng wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 4:10 AM, Michal Toman
> wrote:
> [cut]
>
> I'm willing to see MIPS coming back to Fedora supported arch.
>
> However I failed to apply for a GSoC project of fixing Fedora
> packages
> on MIPS under Fedora Proje
On Fri, Jun 05, 2015 at 10:34:19AM +0200, Dodji Seketeli wrote:
> When the "abipkgdiff" command line tool is ready , I guess the plan is
> to use it in a new Taskotron task that, when invoked on a given package,
> gets the stable version of that package as well as the debuginfo
> packages from koj
On Fri, 2015-06-05 at 14:25 +0200, Till Maas wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 05, 2015 at 10:34:19AM +0200, Dodji Seketeli wrote:
>
> > When the "abipkgdiff" command line tool is ready , I guess the plan
> > is
> > to use it in a new Taskotron task that, when invoked on a given
> > package,
> > gets the sta
On Thu, 2015-06-04 at 23:21 +0200, Haïkel wrote:
> 2015-06-04 20:21 GMT+02:00 John Florian :
> > I’ve been curious how Fedora plans to tackle inclusion of Puppet 4, but
> > haven’t heard even a peep on the subject. As described[1], they’ve moved to
> > an all-in-one packaging process that “include
From 4fe4f3f2fde4c265084b84c9879a2215f3521d8c Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Jitka Plesnikova
Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2015 15:14:11 +0200
Subject: Perl 5.22 rebuild
diff --git a/perl-Test-Manifest.spec b/perl-Test-Manifest.spec
index 1eef277..8f5b4ec 100644
--- a/perl-Test-Manifest.spec
+++ b/perl-Test
From cac1dbd9dbd0ead0de06ae82d80baab96265b657 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Jitka Plesnikova
Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2015 15:14:15 +0200
Subject: Perl 5.22 rebuild
diff --git a/perl-Class-Std.spec b/perl-Class-Std.spec
index 3cc7d0b..81bc7aa 100644
--- a/perl-Class-Std.spec
+++ b/perl-Class-Std.spec
@
From ee57ceb150625387611a201be88f17c79d60a056 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Jitka Plesnikova
Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2015 15:14:01 +0200
Subject: Perl 5.22 rebuild
diff --git a/perl-MARC-Record.spec b/perl-MARC-Record.spec
index d701bc5..20fc628 100644
--- a/perl-MARC-Record.spec
+++ b/perl-MARC-Recor
On Thu, 2015-06-04 at 20:17 -0700, Michael Stahnke wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 2:21 PM, Haïkel
> wrote:
> 2015-06-04 20:21 GMT+02:00 John Florian
> :
> > I’ve been curious how Fedora plans to tackle inclusion of
> Puppet 4, but
> > haven’t heard ev
On Fri, 2015-06-05 at 01:12 -0400, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 2:21 PM, John Florian wrote:
> > I’ve been curious how Fedora plans to tackle inclusion of Puppet 4, but
> > haven’t heard even a peep on the subject. As described[1], they’ve moved to
> > an all-in-one packaging
On Fri, Jun 05, 2015 at 10:34:19AM +0200, Dodji Seketeli wrote:
> We are currently working on a tool named
> "abipkgdiff"[3] that takes two RPMs
About the name: "package" is fairly generic, but "pkg" is used as specific
name. Arch has
".pkg.tar.xz", Slackware has "pkgtool". So unless you plan to s
From 34f8a4e646fa7c9dd6ba6cb1b6c443329ba03331 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Jitka Plesnikova
Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2015 16:22:44 +0200
Subject: Perl 5.22 rebuild
diff --git a/perl-Convert-Color.spec b/perl-Convert-Color.spec
index e12084f..c4baacb 100644
--- a/perl-Convert-Color.spec
+++ b/perl-Conv
Stephen Gallagher a écrit:
>> On Fri, Jun 05, 2015 at 10:34:19AM +0200, Dodji Seketeli wrote:
>>
>> > When the "abipkgdiff" command line tool is ready , I guess the plan
>> > is
>> > to use it in a new Taskotron task that, when invoked on a given
>> > package,
>> > gets the stable version of
> On Fri, Jun 05, 2015 at 10:34:19AM +0200, Dodji Seketeli wrote:
>> We are currently working on a tool named "abipkgdiff"[3] that takes
>> two RPMs
Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek a écrit:
> About the name: "package" is fairly generic, but "pkg" is used as specific
> name. Arch has
> ".pkg.tar.x
= Proposed Self Contained Change: Frappe Framework =
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/frappe-framework
Change owner(s):
* William Moreno Reyes
* Eduardo Mayorga
A full-stack web framework based on Python and Javascript to help you build
powerful business apps and nifty extensions.
== D
On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 6:31 AM, John Florian wrote:
> On Fri, 2015-06-05 at 01:12 -0400, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 2:21 PM, John Florian
> wrote:
> > > I’ve been curious how Fedora plans to tackle inclusion of Puppet 4, but
> > > haven’t heard even a peep on the subject
Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> This first step is limited to C and C++ ABI (basically ELF binaries).
> Long-term, the goal would be to develop and implement ABI checking for
> a variety of other languages, but those tools are not yet readily
> available (or if they are, we don't know about them. So pl
On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 8:15 AM, Michael Stahnke
wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 6:31 AM, John Florian
> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 2015-06-05 at 01:12 -0400, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
>> > On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 2:21 PM, John Florian
>> wrote:
>> > > I’ve been curious how Fedora plans to tackle inc
> On Fri, 2015-06-05 at 10:34 +0200, Dodji Seketeli wrote:
[...]
>> To start, we'd like to have an automated way to check the ABI
>> compatibility of binaries embedded in packages that are submitted to
>> the
>> updates-testing repository. When an incompatible change[1] is
>> detected,
>> the
On Fri, Jun 05, 2015 at 01:31:10PM +, John Florian wrote:
> Personally I do so using a scheme like /opt/$VENDOR/$PRODUCT/$RELEASE,
> but to my knowledge the FHS has never ratified anything like that. The
> FHS seems to take a rather vague stance on /opt overall IMHO.
This is actually specific
On Fri, Jun 05, 2015 at 11:31:04AM -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
> This is actually specifically addressed in FHS 3.0, released, actually,
> _just this week_. See
> http://www.linuxfoundation.org/collaborate/workgroups/lsb/fhs-30
> and specifically
> http://refspecs.linuxfoundation.org/FHS_3.0/f
Hi!
(Sorry for top-quote, but on mobile...)
Copy that and FHS states this quite clear. Personally I'm also not a huge fan
of software installing to /opt.
Neither am I a fan of packaging (local) libraries in there - for a variety of
reasons. I even think the Fedora packaging guidelines forbid th
On Fri, 2015-06-05 at 11:32 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 05, 2015 at 11:31:04AM -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
> > This is actually specifically addressed in FHS 3.0, released, actually,
> > _just this week_. See
> > http://www.linuxfoundation.org/collaborate/workgroups/lsb/fhs-30
> >
On Fri, Jun 05, 2015 at 06:48:45PM +, John Florian wrote:
> > > http://refspecs.linuxfoundation.org/FHS_3.0/fhs/ch03s13.html
> Thanks for that info. I've always referenced
> http://www.pathname.com/fhs/ before. Is that no longer
> authoritative ... or was it ever?
It was authoritative for
On Tuesday, June 02, 2015 10:02:30 AM Adam Miller wrote:
> Hello all,
> There was recently a thread on the Fedora ARM mailing list[0]
> about getting a Fedora ARM image into the official Docker Hub. That
> discussion lead down the trail of how to best handle the naming for
> all of this.
>
> T
Hi everyone,
Roshi and I talked about it today over IRC and neither of us sees
anything that needs to be covered this week - no followup items and
nothing of significant note on test@ over the last week.
The council report will also be on Monday (roshi is covering that) and
that was the only some
Hey there,
I'm trying to create an RPM for a package I am trying to build, however, it
does not succeed on EPEL 6. The SRPM builds for F22, EPEL 7, F21, however,
it does not build correctly for EPEL 6.
Here is the error I am getting:
RPM build errors:
File must begin with "/": GPLv2+
F
On Sat, Jun 06, 2015 at 01:56:08AM +, Chaoyi Zha wrote:
> I'm trying to create an RPM for a package I am trying to build, however, it
> does not succeed on EPEL 6. The SRPM builds for F22, EPEL 7, F21, however,
> it does not build correctly for EPEL 6.
See https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/4
Interesting discussion. I was able to fix the issue
using %{!?_licensedir:%global license %doc}, which seems to work on EPEL 6.
Thanks for the info!
On Fri, 5 Jun 2015 at 22:01 Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 06, 2015 at 01:56:08AM +, Chaoyi Zha wrote:
> > I'm trying to create an RPM fo
34 matches
Mail list logo
