Re: Sources file audit - 2010-01-06

On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 18:42:41 +, Christopher wrote: > 2010/1/10 Kevin Fenzi : > > On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 18:21:15 + > > Christopher Brown wrote: > > > >> 2010/1/10 Kevin Fenzi : > >> > Here's another (more accurate/correct) run of the sources file > >> > checker. Thats against a 2010-01-06 cv

Re: Change to DSO-linking semantics of the compiler

On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 19:54:40 -0500, Matthias wrote: > > The old semantics made this case work without the .la file, the new > > semantics lead to programs failing to link in Fedora, making Fedora > > incompatible with upstream (unless we start to ship .la files again). > > .pc files handle this

Re: Change to DSO-linking semantics of the compiler

On Wed, 13 Jan 2010 09:04:21 +, Adam wrote: > On Tue, 2010-01-12 at 20:04 -0500, Matthias Clasen wrote: > > On Wed, 2010-01-13 at 00:06 +, Adam Williamson wrote: > > > > > > > > if so, Mandriva has been enforcing the fixing of this type of error for > > > a couple of years now (by having

Re: Candidate packages for removal due to FTBFS, implications

On Fri, 15 Jan 2010 18:17:21 +0100, Milos wrote: > On 15.1.2010 07:00, Matt Domsch wrote: > > > synce-kde-0.9.1-4.fc11.src.rpm > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=539195 > > Synce-kde should be EOL'd already a long time (it has been replaced by > something else, can't remember deta

Re: Candidate packages for removal due to FTBFS, implications

On Fri, 15 Jan 2010 11:13:41 -0600, Matt wrote: > Folks, while I appreciate you fixing these packages so they build > again, _please_ do take the time to consider if they are unloved > enough to be orphaned and dropped anyhow. If it's a leaf node in the > dependency tree, dead upstream, and unres

Re: Orphaning Candidate packages for removal due to FTBFS, implications

On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 05:13:29 +0100, Ralf wrote: > On 01/15/2010 08:17 PM, Matt Domsch wrote: > > > > At today's FESCo meeting, it was agreed that all the below packages > > would be marked orphan. > > Well, if FESCO thinks this was a good idea ... I think you guys stopped > half-ways: You better

Re: Orphaning Candidate packages for removal due to FTBFS, implications

On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 10:59:56 +0100, Hans wrote: > On 01/15/2010 09:01 PM, Till Maas wrote: > > > > What about the other packages of these maintainers? E.g. in the > > recordmydesktop case, there were four bugs open with working patches > > attached for that package. I did not yet check the other p

Re: ABRT frustrating for users and developers

On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 15:09:46 -0500, Tom wrote: > Note: I haven't seen the submitter's end of ABRT yet, just the bug > reports. Maybe it does ask for more info ... Sort of. The final dialogue contains two text edit areas below the summary of what will be sent: http://mschwendt.fedorapeople.org/

Re: Any takers for gpsdrive ?

On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 11:46:27 -0700, Kevin wrote: > Greetings. > > I'd like to find some folks interested in co-maintaining or just fully > maintaining gpsdrive. It's a nifty gps app that lets you download maps > and follow progress and publish your location. > > This package requires a good bi

Re: ABRT frustrating for users and developers

On Sun, 17 Jan 2010 12:36:03 +0100, Nicolas wrote: > Le samedi 16 janvier 2010 à 15:09 -0500, Tom Lane a écrit : > > Users have to provide information > > about what they were doing, copies of input files, etc etc just the > > same as in a manually-initiated bug report. > > IMHO the big plus of

Re: ABRT frustrating for users and developers

On Sun, 17 Jan 2010 13:09:56 +0100, Nicolas wrote: > > A downside is that ABRT is triggered for all sorts of weird > > memory/heap > > corruption that isn't reproducible. Stability problems with RAM chips > > are widespread. > > > > A bugzilla stock response that points at "memtester" and "memtes

Re: Orphaning Candidate packages for removal due to FTBFS, implications

On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 20:01:23 +0100, Tomas wrote: > I think there should be at least two conditions which would have to be > fulfilled for the nagging bug to be created - the package was not > touched by the maintainer during recent x months and at least one bug is > opened not closed in the bugzil

Re: ABRT frustrating for users and developers

On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 21:49:05 -0800, Adam wrote: > On Sat, 2010-01-16 at 16:01 +0100, Christoph Wickert wrote: > > > * abrt is frustrating for users: Today I received my first "No > > need for a reply...I will stop submitting tickets." > > > > Can somebody confirm my observations? >

Re: libcdio update

On Tue, 19 Jan 2010 09:43:49 +0100, Adrian wrote: > I would like to update libcdio to the latest version (0.82). This > requires a rebuild of its dependencies: > > audacious-plugins > gvfs > kover > libcddb > oxine > pycdio > qmmp > xfce4-cddrive-plugin > xmms2 > > If the maintainers of the abov

Re: multiple sources versions in lookaside cache

On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 11:14:01 -0600 (CST), Mike wrote: > On Sat, 23 Jan 2010, Gianluca Sforna wrote: > > > I wanted to download sources for a package and it seems the cache > > hosts several older releases (see below). Is it the normal/intended > > behavior? > > > > At the moment we keep everythi

Update on packages violating the Static Library guidelines

CLOSED texlive 556097 torque 556098 util-vserver556099 xbsql 556100 -> CLOSED xen 556101 xfsprogs556102 xmlse

Re: Reordering in package changelogs (was Re: rawhide report: 20100129 changes)

On Mon, 01 Feb 2010 19:47:20 +0100, Kevin wrote: > Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > > This is one reason I prefer to use the following changelog style > > > > * Thu Jan 28 2010 Michael Schwendt > > - 2.2-10 > > - Fix tuple_copy() further (it was completely broken as th

Two FAS accounts for the same person - permitted?

it only creates confusion. -- Michael Schwendt Fedora release 12 (Constantine) - Linux 2.6.32.7-37.fc12.i686.PAE http://mschwendt.fedorapeople.org/staticbugstat.html -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: nonresponsive maintainer policy

On Tue, 03 Aug 2010 11:27:00 +0100, James wrote: > On 08/02/2010 01:41 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote: > > On Mon, 02 Aug 2010 12:31:22 +0100, James wrote: > > > >> Remember that some packages get very little activity because they need > >> very little. > >

Re: Transfer to git breaks my package?

On Wed, 4 Aug 2010 04:29:23 -0400 (EDT), Jaroslav wrote: > Hi, > > I encountered file in initial git repo that differs from version in latest > cvs head. I cannot find this change in logs nor I didn't make this change (as > far as I remember ;). > > --VERSIONID(`$Id: submit.mc,v 8.14 2006/04/

Re: [ACTION REQUIRED] orphaned packages in F-14

On Wed, 4 Aug 2010 12:32:23 -0400, Bill wrote: > Unblocked orphan librsvg2 What's going on here? More than a dozen Red Hat people with "commit" access, but access was "denied" to one other Red Hat employee. Why? https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/acls/name/librsvg2 | xiphmont's Info | xiphmo

EsounD (was: Re: [ACTION REQUIRED] orphaned packages in F-14)

On Thu, 5 Aug 2010 10:46:42 + (UTC), Petr wrote: > I agree NAS is very old audio system, but it has history. It works (or > should work) across operating systems (do not think only about Linux). > In addition it supports bidirectional sound transmission (from > microphone). > > PulseAudio is

Re: Build on dist-git for F-14: FAILED: GenericError: Build already exists

On Fri, 6 Aug 2010 00:17:23 +0530, Siddhesh wrote: > Hi, > > I'm trying to build gource for F-14 and I get the following error: > 2382335 build (dist-f14-updates-candidate, > /gource:94e27ff92af9990ba724746702f7e34c50af0ae1): open > (x86-10.phx2.fedoraproject.org) -> FAILED: GenericError: Buil

Re: haldaemon seems dead...

On Thu, 5 Aug 2010 14:53:38 +0100, Paul wrote: > Hi, > > I've installed F13 on my home box, updated and then moved it to rawhide. It might be more interesting for you to use F14 Branched instead of Rawhide. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mail

Re: [ACTION REQUIRED] orphaned packages in F-14

On Fri, 06 Aug 2010 14:11:20 -0400, Matthias wrote: > On Wed, 2010-08-04 at 12:32 -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote: > > > Unblocked orphan librsvg2 > > I've taken ownership of this now, since dropping it is not an option. If > anybody else wants to maintain the package, please let me know, I'm > hap

Re: abrt thoughts pre-rfe q?

On Sat, 07 Aug 2010 11:51:07 +0100, Frank wrote: > Thougth I ask for some feedback. > > Currently when abrt finds an existing bug, > it goes > " similar bug found, (shows a link) adding you to cc" > > looking at some of the bugs, that I have reported or cc'd on. > Where someone earlier in the th

Re: Slow updates?

On Sat, 07 Aug 2010 20:24:42 +0100, David wrote: > How long should it take for these to get pushed? > > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/openconnect-2.25-1.fc12 > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/openconnect-2.25-1.fc13 Bodhi bug? Where's the bodhi comment saying that you've submit

Re: Slow updates?

On Sat, 07 Aug 2010 20:42:18 +0100, David wrote: > On Sat, 2010-08-07 at 21:35 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote: > > On Sat, 07 Aug 2010 20:24:42 +0100, David wrote: > > > > > How long should it take for these to get pushed? > > > > > > https://admin.fe

Re: Plan for tomorrow's FESCo meeting (2010-08-10)

On Tue, 10 Aug 2010 14:20:04 -0600, Kevin wrote: > * LINK: http://fedoraproject.org/PackageReviewStatus/MERGE.html > (nirik, 19:59:05) > * AGREED: : encourage provenpackagers to commit to rawhide fixes for > merge reviews. said pp's should not be the reviewer. Pardon? What exactly is

Re: Plan for tomorrow's FESCo meeting (2010-08-10)

On Tue, 10 Aug 2010 18:03:07 -0400, Bill wrote: > Michael Schwendt said: > > > * LINK: http://fedoraproject.org/PackageReviewStatus/MERGE.html > > > (nirik, 19:59:05) > > > * AGREED: : encourage provenpackagers to commit to rawhide fixes for > > >

Re: New bodhi release in production

On Thu, 12 Aug 2010 17:57:28 -0400, Luke wrote: > A new version of bodhi has just hit production. This release contains > a number of bugfixes and improvements, along with some important process > changes. >- Minimum time-in-testing requirements >- Every day bodhi will look

Re: New bodhi release in production

On Fri, 13 Aug 2010 12:12:47 -0400, seth wrote: > On Fri, 2010-08-13 at 18:07 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote: > > Al Dunsmuir wrote: > > > You are assuming that it is somehow a good idea to push release Fn, in > > > spite of no (or negative) testing. > > > > Yes I am! If I build the EXACT SAME specfil

Re: New bodhi release in production

On Sat, 14 Aug 2010 11:33:02 +0200, Kevin wrote: > > I've always warned about mass-pushing updates to multiple dists, > > and I'm glad I'm not the only one. > > EPEL is an entirely different matter, since: > * there are literally YEARS between the RHEL releases and > * RHEL has a very conservativ

Re: Release bumps scripts caution

On Wed, 18 Aug 2010 12:04:33 -0700, Jesse wrote: > The bump script lives in releng git repo (git.fedorahosted.org/releng if > anybody wants to hack on it. Sure about that? All I could find there was a reference to rpmdev-bumpspec (part of "rpmdevtools" package nowadays). The older script's home i

Re: Busted F13 buildroot?

On Thu, 19 Aug 2010 17:51:21 +0100, Bastien wrote: > Heya, > > Trying to build an updated control-center on F13, I ended up with the > following errors: > DEBUG util.py:255: Error: Package: udisks-1.0.1-1.fc13.i686 (build) > DEBUG util.py:255: Requires: liblvm2app.so.2.1 > DEBUG util

Re: [openoffice.org] rebuild with new poppler

On Sat, 21 Aug 2010 13:30:32 + (UTC), David Tardon wrote: > commit 07744edb929208089cd7901741e211d9babc15a8 > Author: David Tardon > Date: Sat Aug 21 15:30:09 2010 +0200 > > rebuild with new poppler > > openoffice.org.spec |5 - > 1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletions

Re: mcelog errors

On Sun, 22 Aug 2010 09:45:47 -0600, Petrus wrote: > The mcelog script in cron.hourly runs hourly and, hourly, I get system mail > stating that > a "device does not exist". This is a regression, as this error was present in > rawhide > before f13 came out, and now, in f14α, it is back. Bugs ar

Re: systemd and changes

On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 16:17:21 -0400, Matthew wrote: > Was there a conversation other than this FESCO meeting? > > > There, I see this discussion: > > 20:51:41 so, i would like to keep the options

Re: dist-f14-updates-testing tag/untag koji notices

On Tue, 24 Aug 2010 13:08:50 -0500, Rex wrote: > You may have noticed notices landing in your mailbox today similar to: > > foo-1.0-2.fc14 successfully untagged from dist-f14-updates-testing by > rdieter > > You should be able to safely ignore all those, as the mess I caused > trying to clean

Re: dist-f14-updates-testing tag/untag koji notices

On Tue, 24 Aug 2010 20:59:54 +0200, Michael wrote: > On Tue, 24 Aug 2010 13:08:50 -0500, Rex wrote: > > > You may have noticed notices landing in your mailbox today similar to: > > > > foo-1.0-2.fc14 successfully untagged from dist-f14-updates-testing by > > rdieter > > > > You should be able

Re: systemd or why will user fall away from fedora?

On Tue, 24 Aug 2010 22:46:41 +0200, Farkas wrote: > and we all know what happened with pulseaudio. everybody turn it off and > remove it from the system in at least 3 fedora release, just because > some of their apps are not working. Which is a pain, admittedly, if those users are the developers

Re: [setroubleshoot] - Rebuild for python-2.7

On Wed, 25 Aug 2010 09:39:28 + (UTC), Jochen wrote: > commit 7064c1cae703c50c4586162487b54a89720f4480 > Date: Wed Aug 25 11:39:22 2010 +0200 > > - Rebuild for python-2.7 > Summary: Helps troubleshoot SELinux problems > Name: setroubleshoot > Version: 2.2.91 > -Release: 2%{?dist} > +

Re: Gummi update issue

On Thu, 02 Sep 2010 13:48:07 -0700, Adam wrote: > On Fri, 2010-09-03 at 01:47 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > > Hi > > > > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/gummi-0.4.8-2.fc13 update has > > been pushed to stable despite known brokenness (it doesn't start at > > all). See last comment > >

Re: newer NVRs in older releases.

On Tue, 07 Sep 2010 16:20:31 -0400, Tom wrote: > Toshio Kuratomi writes: > > On Tue, Sep 07, 2010 at 11:56:23AM -0400, Dave Jones wrote: > >> Could the buildsystem be changed to prevent newer NVRs from being > >> built if an older one exists in a newer buildroot ? Should it ? Is > >> there a valid

Re: fedpkg workflow and release numbers

On Sun, 19 Sep 2010 16:40:16 +0200, Christoph wrote: > Hi all, > > since I keep offlineimap the same version for the latest stable (that I > got my hands on) + devel versions, my fedpkg workflow looks like: > > 1. master> build package > > 2. f14> git pull origin master && fedpkg push && fedpkg

Re: -static packages

On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 12:39:09 -0400, Tom wrote: > "Bryn M. Reeves" writes: > > On 09/15/2010 05:06 PM, Robert Spanton wrote: > >> So, would be acceptable to register requests for -static package > >> variants as tickets on bugzilla? Or is there a better way to try to > >> encourage people to gener

Re: Fedora "backports" repo? (Was Re: PostgreSQL 9 for F14?)

On Tue, 21 Sep 2010 01:51:03 +0200, Michał wrote: > Setting up "official" backport repo will avoid repos fragmentation. > Keeping all cool updates in one place appears to be a reasonable idea. > Am I right? Wait a minute! You need to define "fragmentation" here. It seems you refer to the geograph

Re: bodhi v0.7.9 deployed

On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 14:19:06 -0400 (EDT), Luke wrote: > A new version of bodhi has just hit production. This release contains a > number > of bugfixes and enhancements. > > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates > - Email the proventesters about stale unapproved critical path updates But

Re: libedataserverui soname bump in Fedora 14

On Fri, 24 Sep 2010 10:57:41 +0200, Milan wrote: > Hi all, > I'm so sorry for a late notice, but there was a soname bump of > libedataserverui library from evolution-data-server package in time for > 2.31.91 update, but I didn't notice this change, and because this update > didn't get it to

Broken dependencies with Fedora 14 + updates-testing - 2010-09-27

The following packages in the repository suffer from broken dependencies: == The results in this summary consider Test Updates! == package: perl-HTML-FormFu-0.07

Re: F14 libgdl 2.31.x broken

On Fri, 01 Oct 2010 17:44:05 -0700, Jim wrote: > Any application that uses libgdl on F14 segfaults on startup. Any? That would mean it would have been easy to test whether the update works at all, but either it has been marked stable without any testing or at a time when it worked: https://admin.

Re: "Command not found" misfeature

On Sat, 2 Oct 2010 09:51:31 +0100, Richard wrote: > > F14 seems to have acquired a misfeature where if you mistype a command > or a command is not found, it prints "Command not found." then pauses > for some time, then (sometimes, not always) displays some sort of > error[1]. > > How do I perma

Re: F14 libgdl 2.31.x broken

On Sat, 02 Oct 2010 07:08:56 -0700, Jim wrote: > > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/libgdl-2.31.3-1.fc14 > Anjuta is broken on F14. I don't know if any other apps in the F14 repo > use libgdl. $ repoquery --whatrequires 'libgdl-1.so.3' anjuta-1:2.31.90.0-1.fc14.i686 gnome-python2-gdl-0:2.

Re: Selinux: SSH broken after F-13 --> F-14 upgrade

On Tue, 12 Oct 2010 13:49:41 -0400 (EDT), Michal wrote: > Hi all, > > I've recently upgraded my system, but after that I was not able to connect > through ssh. More things are wrong (from my POV): > 1)SELinux blocks all nondefault ports for ssh > > I have ssh confugured to use different port th

Re: unowned dirs

On Wed, 20 Oct 2010 17:49:56 -0400, Neal wrote: > So I can have: > %dir blah > > in a file included by -f? Didn't know that. (Wonder if it's documented?) It's an "include file" afterall. You can use other macros than only %dir. Or what do you think about how %find_lang works, for example? --

Re: F-14 Branched report: 20101024 changes

On Sun, 24 Oct 2010 12:25:01 -0500, Garrett wrote: > On 10/24/2010 10:17, Branched Report wrote: > > Broken deps for x86_64 > > -- > > qtgpsc-0.2.3-6.fc12.x86_64 requires libgps.so.18()(64bit) > > rakudo-0.0.2010.08_2.7.0-1.fc14.x86_6

Re: F-14 updates hosed?

On Fri, 29 Oct 2010 11:26:15 +1100, Bojan wrote: > Not sure if I'm imagining things, but it looks as if those have been > hosed. For example: > > http://download.fedora.redhat.com/pub/fedora/linux/updates/14/x86_64/ > > Any ideas? During the entire "F-14 Branched" development period, the update

Re: root has broken dependencies in the rawhide tree

On Sat, 30 Oct 2010 15:19:45 +0300, Jussi wrote: > On Sat, 30 Oct 2010 07:14:43 -0400 > Neal Becker wrote: > > I have no idea what these messages I've received mean: > > > > root has broken dependencies in the rawhide tree: > > On x86_64: > > root-unuran-5.26.00e-1.fc15.x86_64 requires >

Re: rawhide report: 20101030 changes

On Sat, 30 Oct 2010 21:57:59 +0200, Tomasz wrote: > Could you point us to review of LibreOffice package? According to > http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2010-October/144107.html > you need full process for new package when changing upstream. See %changelog. -> http://bugzilla.re

Re: The new Update Acceptance Criteria are broken (was: Re: Heads Up - New Firefox update)

On Sun, 31 Oct 2010 04:37:38 +0100, Kevin wrote: > Martin Stransky wrote: > > there's a new Firefox update waiting in Bodhi and we can't push it to > > stable because of new rules. We recommend you to update to it ASAP as it > > fixes a public critical 0day vulnerability > > (https://bugzilla.mozi

Re: bugzilla bugzappers?

On Wed, 3 Nov 2010 21:41:22 +0100, Bert wrote: > hi! > > This is something I got in my mail box today. > As I don't have a valid answer for this, maybe someone else can answer for me? > > cheers, Bert > > the url of the blog of the guy: http://www.krisbuytaert.be/blog/ > > == the mail == > >

Re: [libxml2] Release of libxml2-2.7.8

On Thu, 4 Nov 2010 17:41:34 + (UTC), Daniel wrote: > Release of libxml2-2.7.8 > > libxml2.spec | 10 -- Seems to break the koji build root due to ABI incompatibility. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: bugzilla bugzappers?

On Thu, 04 Nov 2010 09:38:35 -0700, Adam wrote: > On Thu, 2010-11-04 at 13:28 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote: > > > > So can someone please explain my why I should continue to try to > > > improve Fedora by reporting bugs ? > > > > Glad you ask this. The bugz

Re: bugzilla bugzappers?

On Fri, 05 Nov 2010 12:30:41 -0700, Adam wrote: > If the bug hasn't had any attention for the last > year and a half it's not particularly likely to magically get it now, is > it? Then why should the reporter take action in reply to the NEEDINFO bugzapping request? Something is terribly wrong he

Re: bugzilla bugzappers?

On Fri, 05 Nov 2010 17:56:51 +0100, Ralf wrote: > ABRT > It doesn't tell the user that core dumps without reproducer are > worthless in most cases but blindly sends out reports Parts of the Fedora user base "abuse" ABRT in that they refuse to fill in the empty fields. Blame the reporters not th

ABRT (was: Re: bugzilla bugzappers?)

On Thu, 04 Nov 2010 23:05:01 +0100, Jiri wrote: > - if you think ABRT is not providing a good info for you packages, then > please write me an email how to improve it Could you please add another hurdle that tries to stop users from not filling in the empty fields about how to reproduce a proble

Re: bugzilla bugzappers?

On Thu, 04 Nov 2010 23:58:21 +, Jóhann wrote: > On behalf of all reporters that have never received a response from a > maintainer on a component they have reported against I not only ask the > ABRT maintainers to block any reports against those component that a > maintainer has not respond

Re: bugzilla bugzappers?

On Fri, 5 Nov 2010 09:27:46 +0200, Alexander wrote: > I can't see why can't we just admit - This is our best feel free to join us > and help ?? (someone should find better wording) Yeah. It isn't that obvious to our users (and potential contributors among them) where help is needed, where help

Re: bugzilla bugzappers?

On Fri, 05 Nov 2010 13:45:37 -0700, Adam wrote: > > Something is terribly wrong here, if reporter adjusts F12 -> F13 -> F14 > > over a period of N months in reply to the automated NEEDINFO requests and > > still doesn't get any response other than another automated one after > > six more months. >

Re: bugzilla bugzappers?

On Sat, 06 Nov 2010 04:17:59 +, Jóhann wrote: > On 11/06/2010 02:11 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > > On 11/05/2010 10:06 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote: > >> On Thu, 04 Nov 2010 23:58:21 +, Jóhann wrote: > >> > >>> On behalf of all reporters tha

Re: bugzilla bugzappers?

On Fri, 05 Nov 2010 15:15:36 -0700, Adam wrote: > On Fri, 2010-11-05 at 23:09 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote: > > On Fri, 05 Nov 2010 13:45:37 -0700, Adam wrote: > > > > > > Something is terribly wrong here, if reporter adjusts F12 -> F13 -> F14 > > > &

Re: bugzilla bugzappers?

On Sat, 6 Nov 2010 12:23:00 +0200, Alexander wrote: > How can you expect a maintainer to fix/respond to hundreds of bugs and not > expect the user to verify his/her bug still applies? Have you noticed how many ticket EOL warnings some users receive all of a sudden? They may be able to pay atten

Re: bugzilla bugzappers?

On Sat, 6 Nov 2010 13:36:24 +0200, Alexander wrote: > Hmm, let's switch user with maintainer? > > Have you noticed how many new tickets some maintainers receive all of a > sudden? In general or because of the EOL script creating a flood? ;) Who classifies whether an incoming bug report is impo

Re: bugzilla bugzappers?

On Sat, 6 Nov 2010 13:38:36 +0200, Alexander wrote: > Oh and I forgot to add this: > If you think it is discouraging for the user do get his bug autoclosed, why > do > you think it is not discouraging for the maintainer to ask questions and > noone > answers them? Perhaps read my other replie

Re: Why should I ever bother filing another bug?

On Sun, 07 Nov 2010 19:07:08 -0500, Digimer wrote: > Try popping by IRC and asking why a particular bug hasn't been acted on. Does that scale? > If it's a lack of time, then there you go. I wouldn't expect somebody to lurk on IRC then and visit a ticket just because someone else makes some nois

Re: [ACTION REQUIRED v2] Retiring packages in F-16

On Thu, 14 Jul 2011 15:05:16 -0400, TC (Tom) wrote: > > Orphan: xmms > > logjam requires xmms-devel = 1:1.2.11-12.20071117cvs.fc15 > > logjam-xmms requires xmms = 1:1.2.11-12.20071117cvs.fc15 > > logjam-xmms requires libxmms.so.1 > > purple-plugin_pack requires xmms-devel = 1:1.2.1

Re: Are their guidelines for packaging translated man pages?

On Mon, 18 Jul 2011 09:45:33 +0100, RWMJ (Richard) wrote: > On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 10:09:21AM +0200, Andreas Bierfert wrote: > > On Mon, 2011-07-18 at 08:57 +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > > > I have a package that supplies translated man pages (only in Ukrainian > > > strangely enough). They

Re: Strange package: fedora-icon-theme

On Thu, 21 Jul 2011 18:58:13 +0400, DB (Dmitry) wrote: > There is "fedora-icon-theme" package, which looks strange a little. > > Since F13 it no more contains any files at all (just directories), ie. > it looks like a meta-package. > OTOH its source rpm still has full tarball with png icons etc.

Re: Fixing a FTBFS bug - unresponsive maintainer

On Mon, 25 Jul 2011 13:45:34 +0200, JL (Johannes) wrote: > Hello, > > there is a pretty easy to fix FTBFS bug but the maintainer doesn't > really react on anything. > Does anyone knows how to contact him through other channels? I know that > he's present in some fedora irc channels as 'Smoother

Re: RPM version goes backward in Rawhide

On Tue, 26 Jul 2011 13:59:51 -0600, JJ (Jerry) wrote: > I just did a "package-cleanup --orphans" on my Rawhide machine to see > which of the just-blocked packages are installed there. To my > surprise, I got this: > > # package-cleanup --orphans > Loaded plugins: auto-update-debuginfo, langpacks

Re: RPM version goes backward in Rawhide

On Tue, 26 Jul 2011 14:42:09 -0700, TK (Toshio) wrote: > On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 01:24:58PM -0700, Jesse Keating wrote: > > On 7/26/11 1:14 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote: > > > Yes, It got untagged. See last week's thread on this list: > > > Subject: rpm bui

Re: RPM version goes backward in Rawhide

On Wed, 27 Jul 2011 09:19:08 -0700, JK (Jesse) wrote: > On 7/27/11 2:03 AM, Michael Schwendt wrote: > > There is a big difference between "a package going backwards in its EVR > > and staying there" and "a package getting untagged because it breaks koji > &g

Re: RPM version goes backward in Rawhide

On Wed, 27 Jul 2011 18:51:12 -0700, AW (Adam) wrote: > On Wed, 2011-07-27 at 20:39 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote: > > > Take off your pink glasses. Rawhide *is* a dumping ground. It breaks > > users' installations regularly because of package maintainers using it > &g

Re: RPM version goes backward in Rawhide

On Fri, 29 Jul 2011 02:29:23 +0300, KL (Kalev) wrote: > Bumping epoch in rpm would have made it harder for all other packages to > depend on a particular rpm version. Instead of having e.g. > Requires: rpm >= 4.9.1, they would now also have to remember the put the > correct epoch in there. Worth

Re: Strange RPM versioning problem in qemu in Rawhide

On Tue, 02 Aug 2011 07:49:53 -0500, JMF (Justin) wrote: > On Tue, 2011-08-02 at 13:37 +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > > Below are two packages. The first one is installed, the second one is > > built for Koji. Yum refuses to upgrade the installed package to the > > second one, saying: > > >

Re: Strange RPM versioning problem in qemu in Rawhide

On Tue, 02 Aug 2011 11:58:08 -0700, AW (Adam) wrote: > > 0.2.20110718525e3df.fc16 > > 0.2.2011072859fadcc.fc17 > > > > Split up into the elements that RPM compares, these are: > > > > 0, 2, 20110718525, e, 3, df, fc, 16 > > 0, 2, 2011072859, fadcc, fc, 17 > > > > The thi

Re: To Require or not to Require?

On Thu, 11 Aug 2011 13:19:49 +0100, DH (David) wrote: > > Hi, > > I have a package (keyutils) that produces three RPMs: keyutils (programs), > keyutils-libs and keyutils-devel. The programs in the keyutils RPM depend on > the libraries in the keyutils-libs RPM and pick up implicit dependencies

Re: To Require or not to Require?

On Thu, 11 Aug 2011 13:29:52 +0100, PH (Paul) wrote: > Library requirements should be implicit unless there's a good reason > otherwise; see: > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Explicit_Requires Not true, or "not the full story". Library SONAME requirement for _external_ build

Re: To Require or not to Require?

On Thu, 11 Aug 2011 15:03:47 +0200, AS (Andreas) wrote: > > Library SONAME requirement for _external_ builds ought to stay > > implicit/automatic, but _libraries and subpackages_ are a different > > problem space. A library update may add stuff without changing its SONAME > > and while staying com

Re: To Require or not to Require?

On Thu, 11 Aug 2011 15:24:30 +0200, AS (Andreas) wrote: > > The difference is that the subpackages may need the new symbols immediately > > when installing the packages, whereas future builds of external packages > > would link with the latest library version that has been released before > > and

Re: To Require or not to Require?

On Thu, 11 Aug 2011 14:10:44 +0100, PH (Paul) wrote: > >> Library SONAME requirement for _external_ builds ought to stay > >> implicit/automatic, but _libraries and subpackages_ are a different > >> problem space. A library update may add stuff without changing its SONAME > >> and while staying co

Re: To Require or not to Require?

On Thu, 11 Aug 2011 16:13:48 +0200, AS (Andreas) wrote: > > No external package can build with new features of the new "foo-libs" > > package > > prior to making that package available in the buildroot. > > How is the contents of the buildroot relevant to "yum install bar"? "bar" has been built

Re: To Require or not to Require?

On Thu, 11 Aug 2011 17:23:06 +0200, AS (Andreas) wrote: > > On Thu, 11 Aug 2011 16:13:48 +0200, AS (Andreas) wrote: > > > >> > No external package can build with new features of the new "foo-libs" > >> > package > >> > prior to making that package available in the buildroot. > >> > >> How is the

Re: To Require or not to Require?

On Fri, 12 Aug 2011 09:32:26 +0200, AS (Andreas) wrote: > > So, where are we now? > > yum install bar doesn't update foo-libs automagically. Which is why you may benefit from an explicit dependency *if* you publish such an updated "bar" that needs a specific minimum version of foo-libs: http://f

Re: To Require or not to Require?

On Fri, 12 Aug 2011 12:12:15 +0200, AS (Andreas) wrote: > > So, what is safer? > > Neither fixes the missing symbol. There is no missing symbol. Be more verbose. Your very brief replies don't give enough context. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.o

Re: To Require or not to Require?

On Fri, 12 Aug 2011 13:00:57 +0200, AS (Andreas) wrote: > > There is no missing symbol. > > Of course there is. See > . No, there isn't, because of a subpackage dependency with full NEVR, even if that may not be needed as a defa

Re: To Require or not to Require?

On Fri, 12 Aug 2011 14:30:46 +0200, Andreas Schwab wrote: > > The separate "bar" package still is entirely irrelevant > > It kills your entire argument. > > Andreas. It still doesn't. libfoo update would need to come first. First come, first served. And what packaging techniques to apply in th

Re: conflict in packages in fedora 15

On Fri, 12 Aug 2011 02:29:14 +0300, MA (Muayyad) wrote: > hello, > > what is the reason for this > > Transaction Check Error: > file /lib/firmware/phanfw.bin from install of > netxen-firmware-4.0.534-4.fc15.noarch conflicts with file from package > linux-firmware-20110601-1.fc15.noarch It's a

Re: To Require or not to Require?

On Fri, 12 Aug 2011 15:54:45 +0200, Andreas Schwab wrote: > > libfoo update would need to come first. > > How? > > Andreas. > If you're serious about discussing this further, show that. I'm not going to reply to this thread anymore before tomorrow. With your single-word reply you [once again

Re: To Require or not to Require?

On Fri, 12 Aug 2011 17:30:10 +0100, MG (Matthew) wrote: > On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 09:26:33AM -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 04:40:20PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: > > > Upstream can change the ABI as much as they want without bumping the > > > SONAME providing that th

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >