On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 18:10:31 -0500, Jean-Marc wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Hoping to be wrong.
>
> Today I was working on my package after a long time,
> I upgraded from version 2.1-320 to 2.1-400.
>
> I didn't "fedpkg new-sources" and only updated
> the spec file to be 2.1
On Sun, 30 Jan 2011 15:08:55 +0100, Alain wrote:
> Hi
>
> piklab fails to build in rawhide:
> http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2750261
>
> and I don't know how to fix.
> Can somebody help me?
You could have quoted an excerpt from the build.log. I found this
for the failing x8
As the Fedora 14 update of Audacious from 2.4.0 to 2.4.3 has not been
smooth at all and is still annoying users, who need 3rd party plugin
packages which still haven't been pushed, the following consequences are
arising IMO:
Fedora 13
I'm offering Audacious 2.2 (audacious-2.2-16 and audacious-pl
It is the responsibility of 3rd party package repositories, which _depend_
on Fedora packages, to tighten up the RPM dependencies beyond those added
by rpmbuild.
This is particularly important, if the 3rd party _cannot_ prepare updates
based on Fedora's Test Updates found in the updates-testing re
On Wed, 02 Feb 2011 10:58:27 -0800, Adam wrote:
> QA and Desktop teams are running three Test Days to test out GNOME 3
> ahead of F15 (and GNOME 3.0) releases, and the first is tomorrow!
>
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Day:2011-02-03_GNOME3_Alpha
>
> Please come along and help test - the
On Fri, 04 Feb 2011 09:38:37 +1000, Chris wrote:
> So it seems that Audacious is not as flexible between its own different
> version releases? What is with that?
Well, let's not question the developers' decision to bump their "Generic
Plugin API Version" and require plugins to be rebuilt.
Unlik
On Thu, 3 Feb 2011 21:44:09 +0100, Clemens wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > Well, my Rawhide is still stuck with XFCE, because GNOME doesn't work.
> > Creating a fresh user account and logging in starts lots of GNOME related
> > processes, but ends with an empty screen with blue background and a
> > movable mo
On Thu, 03 Feb 2011 13:04:56 -0800, John wrote:
> I was able to compose a DVD of today's rawhide using pungi.
> I was able to install it by: Customize Now, delete package 'gnote'
> from GNOME packages; proceed.
> I got stuck at firstboot because the X server did not start.
> [It has worked in vari
On Fri, 4 Feb 2011 21:09:41 +0100, Christoph wrote:
> > * At the graphical login screen, I cannot log in. I did the useradd
> > manually, and it appears as an empty entry to click on. Authentication
> > fails. Cursor doesn't show any asterisk characters either when typing
> > in the passphrase.
>
On Fri, 04 Feb 2011 10:29:13 +0100, Andreas wrote:
> > MCS [basic] gacutil.exe
> > Inconsistency detected by ld.so: dl-deps.c: 623: _dl_map_object_deps:
> > Assertion `nlist > 1' failed!
>
> http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12454
>
> Andreas.
Interesting.
Could you help class
On Mon, 7 Feb 2011 19:27:12 + (UTC), Cosimo wrote:
> %changelog
> +* Mon Feb 7 2011 Cosimo Cecchi cosimoc redhat com - 2.91.0-1.git20110207
> +- Update to a 2.91.0 git snapshot
> +- Disable DAAP sharing plugin, as it requires a newer libdmapsharing
> +- Depend on gtk3
> +
A newer libdmap
On Thu, 10 Feb 2011 15:01:28 -0600, Dennis wrote:
> The first pass though the mass rebuild has been completed
>
> failures can be found at http://ausil.fedorapeople.org/failed.html and the
> list of all things not built yet at
> http://ausil.fedorapeople.org/rebuild.html
> there is ~400 packa
In Fedora 15 development only, not reproducible with Fedora 14:
Could you help classifying the following backtrace?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=473671
It's related to dlopening a shared lib and crashes during initialization
of static members. ( https://bugzilla.redhat.com/669889
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/553069 (Nautilus) piles up duplicates.
I've pointed out what's going wrong in librsvg2, one way to prevent the
crash, and that there is another duplicate (for F-13) here:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=553069#c8
--> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.
On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 21:57:20 -0500, Gregory wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 9:13 PM, Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
> > I didn't try Michael's fix myself since I don't have a rawhide box
> > with real audio hardware.
> >
> > But looking at the celt code, specifically to the implementations of
> > celt_deco
On 18 February 2011 21:29, Matthias Clasen wrote:
> On Fri, 2011-02-18 at 14:57 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/553069 (Nautilus) piles up duplicates.
>>
>> I've pointed out what's going wrong in librsvg2, one way to prevent the
>
On Mon, 21 Feb 2011 10:14:16 -0800, Adam wrote:
> On Sun, 2011-02-20 at 19:47 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
>
> > In bugzilla 553069 many of the dupes are false positives due to ABRT
> > running wild with non-working detection of duplicates.
>
> For the tenth time, th
On Mon, 21 Feb 2011 13:32:34 -0800, Adam wrote:
> Dropping a snide criticism in a message on a mailing list which is
> purportedly about something else entirely is exactly passive-aggressive:
What the heck is your mission?
Return to the 1st post in this thread. My comment on the "many false
posi
On Thu, 24 Feb 2011 12:46:09 +0900 (JST), Akira wrote:
> BN> Orphan: apel
> BN> ddskk requires apel = 10.7-4.fc12
> BN> emacs-common-w3m requires apel = 10.7-4.fc12
> BN> emacs-w3m requires apel = 10.7-4.fc12
> BN> flim requires apel = 10.7-4.fc12
> BN> migemo-emacs requires ap
On Thu, 24 Feb 2011 12:45:54 +0100, Michael wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Feb 2011 12:46:09 +0900 (JST), Akira wrote:
>
> > BN> Orphan: apel
> > BN> ddskk requires apel = 10.7-4.fc12
> > BN> emacs-common-w3m requires apel = 10.7-4.fc12
> > BN> emacs-w3m requires apel = 10.7-4.fc12
> > BN> f
On Thu, 24 Feb 2011 09:28:10 +0100, Karel wrote:
>- debuginfo symlink points to another binary in another RPM package which
> might not be installed
>
Which is perfectly normal for subpackages, isn't it?
There is only a single -debuginfo package for a src.rpm, but the src.rpm
may build mult
On Thu, 24 Feb 2011 14:07:17 +0100, Dodji wrote:
> > This new path requires you to convince an existing maintainer
> > to mentor you in the processes and guidelines of package maintenance,
> > and would allow you to be sponsored by FESCo or an existing sponsor to
> > co-maintain those package(s) w
On Thu, 24 Feb 2011 16:53:07 +0100, Karel wrote:
> Is this explanation understandable?
Yes.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
On Sun, 27 Feb 2011 21:15:40 +0200, Aurimas wrote:
> >> I think this is sort of intentional. If I understand the way this is
> >> supposed to work correctly then you are not supposed to care if Firefox is
> >> already running but instead simply click on it in your favorites and if an
> >> insta
On Sun, 27 Feb 2011 21:43:54 +0100, drago01 wrote:
> >> Have you tried right-click?
> >
> > Right-click is flawed, as it doesn't offer to start the app if no instance
> > of
> > the app is running already:
> >
> > http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2011-February/097333.html
> >
> > To
On Sun, 27 Feb 2011 23:03:02 +0100, drago01 wrote:
> > Btw, I think the GNOME 3 roll-out in Fedora should be "all or nothing",
> > that means, no *competing* fallback mode that tries to keep old panel
> > features alive.
>
> Well the primary purpose of the fallback is to home something for
> devi
On Wed, 9 Mar 2011 07:37:56 +0100, Sven wrote:
> After a dispute on the #fedora-kde IRC channel thomasj has orphaned a
> huge number of packages.
>
> I extracted the list from scm-commits emails so I hope that I haven't
> missed any.
>
> The following packages are in need of new owners:
> libex
I've orphaned "abicheck" for F-15 and Rawhide.
If nobody wants to take it, I plan to retire it in about a week. It's
likely that nobody uses it anymore, so better not take it if you don't use
it either. ;)
Upstream has been inactive for a very long time (= years) and has not
even merged patches.
Various apps crashing in gtktreemodel.c's
IA__gtk_tree_model_get_valist
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/buglist.cgi?query_format=advanced&short_desc=IA__gtk_tree_model_get_valist&bug_status=NEW&bug_status=ASSIGNED&short_desc_type=allwordssubstr&classification=Fedora
Sometimes after a button pres
On Wed, 16 Mar 2011 09:29:26 +0100, Alain wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Yesterday, I commited a kbackup update, with new sources, in all branches I
> maintain.
> I just forget to "fedpkg new-sources" in all branches but master before
> commiting :-(
>
> Is there an easy way to fix this error?
That's not a
On Tue, 4 May 2010 11:51:11 +0100, Richard wrote:
> There are also technical problems: You can't fit much text in the
> Bodhi text box, and it can't be formatted except as a single
> paragraph, and when you do add a comment to help someone it doesn't
> seem to be seen by the original downvoter.
P
On Mon, 10 May 2010 02:09:45 -0400, Orcan wrote:
> On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 1:27 AM, Chen Lei wrote:
> >
> > As I mentoned below, some packges need update to the
> > lastest release badly to get rid of gtk+ 1.2. And some packages can safely
> > retire from fedora, e.g. xmms.
> >
>
> At that point
On Mon, 10 May 2010 06:49:23 -0400, Orcan wrote:
> >> At that point you break a cult. xmms still has a stubbornly loyal fan
> >> base (just go to #fedora and start talking about it).
> >
> > Why don't they take care of http://bugz.fedoraproject.org/xmms and
> > additional tickets that have been "h
On Tue, 11 May 2010 14:37:22 +0530, Rahul wrote:
> Hi
>
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/acls/bugs/quake3
>
> Quake 3 engine needs to be updated. The current version has security
> issues and breaks multiplayer in a couple of Quake3 based games such as
> OpenArena. The maintainer has no
On Tue, 11 May 2010 13:10:42 +0200, Xavier wrote:
> >>> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/acls/bugs/quake3
> I definitively missed that one.
Like to comment on your other packages? Are there any packages where
you would appreciate co-maintainers?
For example, "soundconverter" has 8 open tic
On Tue, 11 May 2010 10:33:49 -0400, Bernie wrote:
> Yesterday I got this dependency error from yum on Fedora 12:
>
> Error: Paquete: usb_modeswitch-1.1.2-3.fc12.x86_64 (updates)
>Necesita: usb_modeswitch-data
>
> Did I perhaps cause something to break in F-12 with my F-11 update?
W
On Fri, 14 May 2010 20:27:51 -0700, Jesse wrote:
> What is releng supposed to do here though?
It's a hard problem related to tools *and* people.
The longer it takes to push packages into a repo, the longer the window
that creates the race condition. It could be that the push has completed
98% of
On Sat, 15 May 2010 05:40:27 -0400, Matt wrote:
> > Is the +1 the result of substantial
> > testing or just a +1 to get the new "adventurous" stuff, which makes
> > Fedora less boring?
>
> Yes, a standard for +1 karma would be helpful. But even before that, we
> need a standard (or at least an u
On Mon, 17 May 2010 12:24:14 +0100, Richard wrote:
> > 4) People adding negative karma because "unrelated bug that has been
> > present in the older version is still not fixed"
>
> I get this all the time. It would be nice to be able to have a
> "discount this karma" button for maintainers, rathe
> nagios-3.2.1-3.fc12 (FEDORA-2010-8702)
> Update Information:
>
> Fix for broken update from previous nagios version.
>
> ChangeLog:
>
> * Mon May 17 2010 Peter Lemenkov - 3.2.1-3
> - Fixed severe issue with unin
* Only three packages fixed since April 1st.
* 20 packages left to be fixed.
* No new violations since February.
* Bugzilla status for packages violating the Static Library guidelines:
http://mschwendt.fedorapeople.org/staticbugstat.html
acl 556036 -> CLOSE
On Fri, 21 May 2010 16:41:14 -0500, Matt_Domsch wrote:
> It has nothing to do with disk space. Sitting on a few hundred thousand spam
> messages for no reason, that'll get ignored forever, and that slow mailman
> down, serves no purpose.
>
> If moderators want to actually moderate their lists
http://bugzilla.redhat.com/570819
A ticket opened on March 5th, but Pravin Satpute just doesn't
respond.
Does anyone know the languages involved here (lang=he, lang=yi)
and can fix this fonts package, please? Thanks in advance.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fe
On Wed, 02 Jun 2010 20:12:08 +0900, Mamoru wrote:
> > http://bugzilla.redhat.com/570819
> I will vote that this must be fixed in yum side (or fontconfig or rpm).
It could be that a policy is needed. Similar to
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Non-ASCII_Filenames
but for RPM
On Thu, 03 Jun 2010 00:07:24 +0900, Mamoru wrote:
> Toshio Kuratomi wrote, at 06/02/2010 11:51 PM +9:00:
> > On Wed, Jun 02, 2010 at 08:12:08PM +0900, Mamoru Tasaka wrote:
> >> Michael Schwendt wrote, at 06/02/2010 06:49 PM +9:00:
> >>> http://bugzilla.redhat.c
On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 10:26:10 +0200, Julian wrote:
> I just realised that upstream rolled out a new release, 0.16. Several
> bugs seems to have been fixed, so maybe it's worth bringing the package
> back from the dead?
About that, I notified the current pkg owner on Saturday. :-)
Also have added a
On Tue, 8 Jun 2010 16:51:36 -0400 (EDT), Luke wrote:
> =
> Bodhi Statistics Report (Generated on June 8th, 2010)
> =
>
> Out of 17412 total updates, 2958 received feedback (16.99%)
> Out of 104
On Wed, 9 Jun 2010 17:15:01 +0800, Chen wrote:
> > 2010/6/9 Chen Lei:
> >> Yes, the obsoletes is necessary, if you don't add it, yum will only
> >> pull in pidgin-evolution.
> >
> > For which operation? Can you elaborate a bit?
> >
> "yum upgrade" from 2.7.1-1 will only pull in new pidgin-evoluti
On Wed, 9 Jun 2010 14:07:09 +0400, Peter wrote:
> > Competing "Obsoletes" once again. The packager is playing with fire.
>
> Not in this case.
Both pidgin-evolution and pidgin obsolete pidgin <= 2.7.1-1.fc13
Fun for the package resolver.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https
On Wed, 9 Jun 2010 14:06:48 +0400, Peter wrote:
> 2010/6/9 Chen Lei:
>
> > But in this case, the obsoletes seems excessive, since
> > pidgin-evolution already depends on pidgin. If pidgin-evolution don't
> > depend on pidgin, the obsoletes is a must, without it pidgin will be
> > replaced by pid
On Wed, 09 Jun 2010 11:23:49 +0100, Paul wrote:
> The Obsoletes: in pidgin-evo causes pidgin-evo to be pulled in, which is
> fine. The package should obsolete pidgin packages prior to the split but
> not the ones after the split.
Sounds [more] correct.
> > * We need to not erase main pidgin (O
On Wed, 9 Jun 2010 15:38:48 +0100, Stu wrote:
> I implemented it based on recommendations on the yum wiki that I saw
> someone else referred to in #fedora-devel :
> http://yum.baseurl.org/wiki/YumPackageUpdates#Packagesplit
Well, that's exactly an example where the two Obsoletes compete with
each
On Wed, 09 Jun 2010 13:10:10 -0400, James wrote:
> > On Wed, 9 Jun 2010 15:38:48 +0100, Stu wrote:
> >
> > > I implemented it based on recommendations on the yum wiki that I saw
> > > someone else referred to in #fedora-devel :
> > > http://yum.baseurl.org/wiki/YumPackageUpdates#Packagesplit
> >
On Wed, 09 Jun 2010 12:03:50 -0400, Luke wrote:
> According to the new acceptance critera, updates will have to "spend
> some minimum amount of time in updates-testing, currently one week".
> Now, as to whether or not bodhi should auto-push after that week, that
> I'm not quite sure.
Rest assured
On Wed, 09 Jun 2010 14:39:52 -0400, James wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-06-09 at 19:23 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> > On Wed, 09 Jun 2010 13:10:10 -0400, James wrote:
> > > which is to say you have:
> > >
> > > 1. pkgA-1 contains two files: /usr/bin/A and /usr/bin
On Wed, 09 Jun 2010 18:00:15 -0400, James wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-06-09 at 21:38 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> > On Wed, 09 Jun 2010 14:39:52 -0400, James wrote:
> > > And if the user never has pkgA-1 installed, and does "install
> > > pkgA-blah" then th
On Thu, 10 Jun 2010 05:07:16 +0200, Kevin wrote:
> > It fails for a Yum install. I warn about such competing Obsoletes, because
> > they strictly require the user to go the "yum -y update ; yum install ..."
> > route everytime they want to install an additional package.
>
> Installing stuff on a
On Fri, 11 Jun 2010 10:15:55 +0200, Thomas wrote:
> Meant to write "PackageKit". And this is surely a PackageKit bug.
>
> Today this happened again, for the awn-extras-applets package, which
> also self-obsoletes: % rpm -q --obsoletes awn-extras-applets
> awn-extras-applets-devel < 0.4.0-14.fc13
* 19 packages fixed since May 21st. Tom Callaway has done almost all of
the work.
* 2 packages left to be fixed.
* "gcc" has returned due to another static library in its packages,
and no news on "binutils-devel". It still enforces static linkage by
using ld scripts.
The following source
On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 19:56:23 +0800, Chen wrote:
> util-vserver556099 -> CLOSED
>
> FYI, util-vserver is re-enabled to ship static libraries again by the
> maintainer now after spot disabled it.
Not a problem as long as it packages them in adherence to the Packaging
Gu
On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 08:03:08 -0400, Stephen wrote:
> Django 1.2.1 was recently pushed to stable in Fedora 13. This should not
> have been done without discussion on this list.
Just to understand what has happened here:
In three weeks, nobody has added any comment to the update in bodhi.
Has it g
Somebody with full knowledge of the process please update the instructions
in the Wiki:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Orphaned_package_that_need_new_maintainers
The process described there is incomplete. And there are inconsistencies
in the terminology. In pkgdb, a package is called "deprecate
The page "Package Change Requests for existing packages" is unclear:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/CVSAdminProcedure#Package_Change_Requests_for_existing_packages
Please expand on what "explanatory text" you want in addition to the
"Package Change Request" template. If there is
On Mon, 28 Jun 2010 23:03:23 -0600, Kevin wrote:
> It's only in updates-testing yet.
Gah! :-/
I wonder whether after years the "Fedora N updates-testing report" could
finally be sent to users' list instead of test list? Who can make that
happen?
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.
On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 10:05:59 -0700, Adam wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-06-29 at 12:44 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> > On Mon, 28 Jun 2010 23:03:23 -0600, Kevin wrote:
> >
> > > It's only in updates-testing yet.
> >
> > Gah! :-/
> >
> > I won
On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 14:28:40 -0500, Michael wrote:
> Michael Schwendt wrote:
> > A_copy_ to users' list would suffice. Test updates are relevant to the
> > users - and the build reports are sort of an early warning system about
> > what updates will likely be unleashed
On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 14:04:51 +0800, Chen wrote:
> 2010/6/30 Rich Mattes :
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I'm trying to build a package that has a BuildRequires: libjpeg-devel in
> > Rawhide [1]. I get a message in root.log that libjpeg-turbo-devel
> > obsoletes libjpeg-devel, so yum pulls in libjpeg-turbo-d
On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 10:25:37 +0100, Peter wrote:
> > libjpeg is split into libjpeg-turbo and libjpeg-turbo-utils, Obsoletes
> > libjpeg is already added to libjpeg-turbo-utils. I don't know why
> > Rich's package failed to build on koji, the problem is a bit weird.
> > Among 5 packages which requ
On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 17:21:37 +0800, Chen wrote:
> libjpeg is split into libjpeg-turbo and libjpeg-turbo-utils, Obsoletes
> libjpeg is already added to libjpeg-turbo-utils.
root.log of
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2282066
doesn't refer to libjpeg-turbo-utils at all, but just
On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 11:16:11 -0400, seth wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-06-30 at 11:11 -0400, James Antill wrote:
> > On Wed, 2010-06-30 at 10:04 -0400, Rich Mattes wrote:
> >
> >
> > > So this is a bug with yum not handling package obsoletes correctly
> > > when it processes the libjpeg.so.62 dep for gr
On Fri, 02 Jul 2010 13:07:45 +0530, Rahul wrote:
> IMO, there is absolutely nothing wrong with anyone
> with commit access updating packages in Rawhide
Of course there is. There ought to be prior communication about such plans
to upgrade a package. The primary package maintainer may have good r
On Fri, 02 Jul 2010 10:33:52 +0100, Mark wrote:
> ProvenPackagers are there precisely to do what it looks like happened
> with : http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/packageinfo?packageID=8618
Wait a minute, it's not that easy. Provenpackagers are not supposed to
jump in every N months, apply a fix
On Fri, 02 Jul 2010 11:40:11 +0200, Matěj wrote:
> Dne 2.7.2010 11:34, Michael Schwendt napsal(a):
> > Of course there is. There ought to be prior communication about such plans
> > to upgrade a package. The primary package maintainer may have good reasons
> > for not
On Fri, 02 Jul 2010 11:42:10 +0100, Mark wrote:
> >> ProvenPackagers are there precisely to do what it looks like happened
> >> with : http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/packageinfo?packageID=8618
> >
> > Wait a minute, it's not that easy. Provenpackagers are not supposed to
> > jump in every N m
On Fri, 02 Jul 2010 21:58:10 +1000, Dave wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-07-02 at 13:55 +0200, Léon Keijser wrote:
> > On Fri, 2010-07-02 at 11:34 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> > > On Fri, 02 Jul 2010 13:07:45 +0530, Rahul wrote:
> > >
> > > > IMO, there
On Fri, 02 Jul 2010 12:41:18 -0400, Przemek wrote:
> On 07/02/2010 12:09 AM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
>
> > It's in stable now. The time in testing allowed us to fix and add
> > several more packages to it and confirm that it did indeed fix things.
>
> Maybe it's still being propagated, but when I did
On Thu, 1 Jul 2010 13:32:20 -0600, Kevin wrote:
> > The page "Package Change Requests for existing packages" is unclear:
> >
> > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/CVSAdminProcedure#Package_Change_Requests_for_existing_packages
> >
> > Please expand on what "explanatory text" you w
On Sat, 03 Jul 2010 03:40:57 +0200, Kevin wrote:
> Thomas Janssen wrote:
> > You have to accept the maintainers decision to not update it yet? What
> > do you think will happen if everyone builds the wishes he has and
> > breaks a lot of stuff with it? Anarchy? We have processes for that in
> > Fe
On Fri, 02 Jul 2010 20:12:26 +0200, Till wrote:
> Btw. on a related issue:How do provenpackagers properly test for broken
> deps manually?
Every packager can [configure and] run repoclosure from yum-utils.
Enable updates-testing, and optionally add a local repo for your own
candidate builds. It s
On Sat, 3 Jul 2010 18:08:03 +0800, Chen wrote:
> I'm fully agree with you, but there are some maintainers who don't
> respond on bugzilla at all or for a very long time. They may be still
> active on koji, but they don't respond even when you attach a
> patch/spec to solve known issues or request
On Sat, 03 Jul 2010 12:50:15 +0200, Till wrote:
> This is not true, because there can be runtime dependencies on another
> update in -testing that is not build dependency, e.g. if an python app
> requires a newer version of a python module.
1) To make such run-time deps BuildRequires would be hel
On Sat, 03 Jul 2010 15:33 +0200, Kevin wrote:
> Rawhide should always have the latest upstream release unless there's a
> strong reason why a particular release needs to be skipped (i.e. it's
> broken, it contains illegal stuff or something like that).
How would you find out whether that's the
On Sat, 03 Jul 2010 10:05:07 -0700, Adam wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-07-02 at 18:24 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> > On 07/02/2010 06:20 PM, Will Woods wrote:
> >
> >
> > > The main reasons we want to perform testing are things like: to avoid
> > > pushing updates with broken dependencies, or updates
On Sat, 03 Jul 2010 13:35:20 +0200, Till wrote:
> > 1) To make such run-time deps BuildRequires would be helpful (because it
> > doesn't make much sense to build something for a target that is missing
> > something). Several broken deps in old dist branches have been because
> > of a discrepancy b
Broken deps in Fedora 13 + updates + updates-testing when
also enabling Fedora 12 + updates + updates-testing.
One can quickly see that several (if not many) of them are due
to orphans/retired packages in Fedora 12. And due to violated upgrade
paths (e.g. compat-db):
Summary of broken packages
On Sun, 4 Jul 2010 12:33:56 +0200, Michel wrote:
> This is not semantically part of building, though. I see two possible
> solutions:
> 1. Koji should check the explicitly-listed Requirements and refuse to
> build a package if these
>are not available
As I wrote in the previous msg, it would
On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 13:22:16 +0200, Till wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 04, 2010 at 12:06:39PM +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
>
> > And there would be drawbacks, too, for a hardcoded "Req => BR" rule.
> > It would make circular deps impossible: Pkg A requires Pkg A-extras
On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 13:32:14 +0200, Till wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 04, 2010 at 12:31:57PM +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> > Broken deps in Fedora 13 + updates + updates-testing when
> > also enabling Fedora 12 + updates + updates-testing.
> >
> > One can quickly see th
On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 14:40:20 +0200, Till wrote:
> > It's fairly easy to verify other broken deps, too:
> > http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/compat-db-4.7.25-3.fc13
>
> For me it is not that easy, because the information is confusion (or not
> clearly arranged) or not directly accessible, e.
On Tue, 6 Jul 2010 13:39:43 +0100, Richard wrote:
> So I think it's valid for packages to have 0, 1, 2, or more
> maintainers.
Why 0? Who will be notified about bugzilla tickets? Who will receive
mail sent to the PACKAGE-owner Fedora e-mail alias?
For each package in the collection, there ought
On Wed, 07 Jul 2010 01:53:29 +0200, Kevin wrote:
> Kevin Fenzi wrote:
>
> > If some provenpackager want's to maintain it, why don't they take
> > ownership?
>
> Because I can fix the occasional broken dependency, [...]
... which hopefully will not be a problem anymore with a revised
push proces
On Wed, 07 Jul 2010 16:29:01 -0400, Tom wrote:
> However, if a subpackage is independent of any base package (it does
> not require it, either implicitly or explicitly), it must include
> copies of any license texts (as present in the source) which are
> applicable to the files contained w
On Wed, 07 Jul 2010 16:29:01 -0400, Tom wrote:
> [mschwendt] audacious: audacious-libs-2.4-0.3.alpha2.fc14.x86_64
Fixed in Rawhide.
> [mschwendt] mcs: mcs-libs-0.7.1-9.fc13.x86_64
False positive. mcs-libs contains all the %doc files, and mcs automatically
depends on mcs-libs.
--
devel maili
On Thu, 8 Jul 2010 14:28:13 -0600, Kevin wrote:
> So, here we are today with 242 still open merge reviews:
> http://fedoraproject.org/PackageReviewStatus/MERGE.html
> (Plus a few that were closed when they shouldn't have been).
Dumb question first: Where could I have found the URL of that page?
On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 09:02:30 +0100, Camilo wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 11, 2010 at 5:14 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> > Upstream wants to talk to somebody who's actually experiencing the problem,
> > not to a forwarding monkey.
It depends on the project. Some projects do not want to receive reports
about pr
Is there an expert related to GtkIconTheme, who could tell whether
http://bugzilla.redhat.com/614633
is a bug in the application and not in GtkIconTheme? More comments on
the symptoms:
http://bugzilla.redhat.com/530920#c3
http://bugzilla.redhat.com/530920#c8
In particular, icon references
On Fri, 16 Jul 2010 12:34:54 +0200, Dan wrote:
> the result of the rebuild are:
>
> failed to build due the removed function, here I will prepare a fix
> multiget
>
> failed to build due other problems:
> audacity
Likely fall-out from the recent upgrade to GCC 4.5.0 a few days ago.
> plee-the-
http://bugzilla.redhat.com/615422
What to do with this ticket? XLib, Pulse Audio and gtk2 in the backtrace.
What do other package maintainers do with such reports?
Thread 1 (Thread 1787):
#0 XCloseDisplay (dpy=0x99f9c08) at ClDisplay.c:74
ext = 0x0
i =
#1 0x060966e6 in pa_clien
GQview development has stopped in January 2007. Last stable release is from
Dec 2006. Last development release is also from Dec 2006 and has not been
continued in any way.
The Geeqie project (package "geeqie") has taken over the development after
forking GQview. They have made a 1.0 release this y
On Sun, 18 Jul 2010 10:41:42 -0600, Kevin wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Jul 2010 12:09:01 +1000
> David Timms wrote:
>
> ...snip...
>
> > Should I update the URL ?
No. Drop it if it gives 404 Not Found.
> > I was thinking to comment the original URL & Source indicating the
> > original site, but then ch
401 - 500 of 1490 matches
Mail list logo
