php-gettext

What's the full story here? php-gettext php-gettext-0:1.0.11-5.fc20.noarch isn't obsoleted php-gettext-0:1.0.11-4.fc19.noarch isn't obsoleted php-gettext-0:1.0.11-3.fc18.noarch isn't obsoleted php-gettext-0:1.0.9-3.fc15.noarch is oldest php-gettext < 0:1.0.11-3 obsoleted b

python-django insufficient Obsoletes

The "Obsoletes" tag for these python-django-foo renames is not high enough. A systematical error due to not considering the dist tag. django-extra-form-fields django-extra-form-fields-0:0.0.1-2.fc17.noarch isn't obsoleted django-extra-form-fields-0:0.0.1-1.fc16.noarch is oldest djan

Re: Overall fedora-review test results.

On Thu, 22 Aug 2013 15:27:47 +0200, Alec Leamas wrote: > In an attempt to test fedora-review we have run it on almost allpackages > in the complete rawhide distribution. Our primary objective is to > certify that fedora-review is stable for all this kind of input. Also, > these test reveals som

Re: Overall fedora-review test results.

On Thu, 22 Aug 2013 18:10:12 +0200, Alec Leamas wrote: > > Funny! I'm interested in hearing more about these, > > > >| 347 CheckStaticLibs > >|Static libs not in a -static package. Most are haskell packages > >|which have an exception not handled by f-r. There are more,

Re: Overall fedora-review test results.

On Thu, 22 Aug 2013 15:27:47 +0200, Alec Leamas wrote: > The overall results with some comments are at http://ur1.ca/f5xxw . The CheckSoFiles results might be .so plug-in libs (extension modules), which are stored in private paths, i.e. outside run-time linker's search. Or even non-versioned sh

F20 release name election?

https://admin.fedoraproject.org/voting/about/relnamef20 Is this thing for real? https://admin.fedoraproject.org/voting/ says the End Date is 2013-08-23 23:59:59. Where has it been announced this time? There's nothing in the archives for announce and devel-announce list. -- devel mailing list d

Re: F20 release name election?

On Fri, 23 Aug 2013 13:39:40 +0200, Tomas Radej wrote: > Hi, > > On Thu, 22 Aug 2013 18:23:39 -0600 > Chris Murphy wrote: > > > > > I'd back no release name for 20 with 8 points and 0 for everything else, if > > it's an option, and in particular if the marketing includes to the effect > > of

Re: F20 release name election?

On Fri, 23 Aug 2013 09:04:54 -0500, inode0 wrote: > [...] so why do we have to keep going over this? Dunno whether we _have_ to. The original purpose of this thread has been a different one. -- Fedora release 20 (Null) - Linux 3.11.0-0.rc6.git1.2.fc20.x86_64 loadavg: 0.08 0.09 0.07 -- devel ma

Re: Blocking unblocked retired packages

On Sat, 24 Aug 2013 07:20:36 +0800, Christopher Meng wrote: > I don't know what happened with libgssglue. > > This was retired for what reason? > > It affects too many... http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/libgssglue.git/plain/dead.package is not helpful and only tells "Obsolete package", but

Re: Blocking unblocked retired packages

On Sat, 24 Aug 2013 10:30:00 +0200, Till Maas wrote: > > http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/libgssglue.git/plain/dead.package > > > > is not helpful and only tells "Obsolete package", but that doesn't > > seem to refer to RPM Obsoletes: > > > > $ repoquery --whatobsoletes libgssglue > > $ >

libgssapi libgssglue / Re: Blocking unblocked retired packages

On Sat, 24 Aug 2013 16:46:23 +0800, Christopher Meng wrote: > I want to know the reason, why he retired it. Well, the dead.package file is supposed to tell, but in this case it's only ambiguous. > If there is a new package, which will replace it? A _replacement_ would need to follow the guidel

Re: F20 release name election?

On Sat, 24 Aug 2013 13:35:40 -0500, inode0 wrote: > [...] This was just an announcement of the vote and look where it has > gone. It was the missing announcement that made me start this thread, after I had learnt late about the almost ended election in the German Fedora forum and nowhere else.

Dear Fedora Packagers!

e Thanks for your interest. It is a reoccuring problem that both the rename request submitter *and* the reviewer get the Obsoletes tags wrong. -- Michael Schwendt Fedora release 20 (Null) - Linux 3.11.0-0.rc7.git0.1.fc20.x86_64 loadavg: 0.36 0.21 0.15 -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproj

Re: Dear Fedora Packagers!

On Wed, 28 Aug 2013 09:04:23 -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: > I've highlighted the %{?dist} tag issue. see if this is better now: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Renaming.2FReplacing_Existing_Packages > Any change like that could help. :) Thanks for the effort! -- devel ma

Re: [ACTION REQUIRED] Packages depending on retired packages

On Thu, 29 Aug 2013 09:57:18 +0200, 80 wrote: > By mere curiosity, why didn't we follow the usual renaming process (and > avoid losing the previous history in git) ? > It was just an upstream rename due to a trademark issue. The rename process may have been followed, but the renamed packages have

Re: [ACTION REQUIRED] Packages depending on retired packages

On Thu, 29 Aug 2013 12:52:25 +0200, Till Maas wrote: > I guess you won't get responses to packages that are orphaned, because > then the bug report is assigned to the orphan user. Only few were orphaned when filing the bugs. I just didn't think about using the pkgdb API to fetch the list. > > D

Re: HEADS UP - libcue soname bump in Fedora 20/21.

On Sat, 31 Aug 2013 20:11:12 +0400, Peter Lemenkov wrote: > Hello All! > I'm going to update libcue up to 1.4.0 from current 1.3.0, with soname > bump. The following packages are affected by this upgrade: > > * audacious-plugins-0:3.4-0.6.beta1.fc19.x86_64 Wherever you've run that query, this is

Re: rpmbuild --buildarch equivalent?

On Fri, 26 Jul 2013 12:49:01 +0200, Juerg Haefliger wrote: > >> Hi, > >> > >> A long time ago rpmbuild used to have an option --buildarch to > >> override the arch detection. What is its equivalent nowadays? Sorry, > >> couldn't figure it out so far. > >> > > > > --target=x86_64 > > Hmm... That b

Re: Retiring libeio

On Sat, 7 Sep 2013 18:03:48 -0700, T.C. Hollingsworth wrote: > I adopted libeio back when Node.js still bundled it to aid in the unbundling > effort, but upstream "fixed" the bundling problem here by no longer using > libeio for anything. That explains a bit more! libeio is bundled within perl-I

Re: *please* unpush firefox-23.0.1-4.fc18 from updates-testing

On Sun, 8 Sep 2013 17:32:55 +0200, Tomasz Torcz wrote: > On Sun, Sep 08, 2013 at 12:11:05PM +0200, Reindl Harald wrote: > > no idea why the FF maintainer does not try to install his own > > package for days or at least replace it with a clean build > > > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi

Re: separation emacs-common into more packages

On Tue, 10 Sep 2013 13:54:47 +0200, Petr Hracek wrote: > Hi folks, > > I would like to separate emacs-common into more packages (in rawhide > currently). > emacs-common contains all lisp files, info and man pages > Do you think that it is a good idea to separate them into groups like > > emacs-

Re: Package name conflict with retired package

On Fri, 13 Sep 2013 09:54:49 +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: > On 09/12/2013 10:40 PM, Sandro Mani wrote: > > > I just posted a review for avl (the Aerodynamic and flight-dynamic > > analysis of rigid aircrafts package) [1], and the reviewer noticed that > > it conflicts with the retired avl package

ibus-typing-booster Obsoletes failure

What is going on in package "ibus-typing-booster"? http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/ibus-typing-booster.git/plain/ibus-typing-booster.spec It attempts at obsoleting various packages, but since it does that with a specific dist tag and without retiring those packages, it fails entirely, because

Re: php-gettext

> What's the full story here? > > php-gettext > php-gettext-0:1.0.11-5.fc20.noarch isn't obsoleted > php-gettext-0:1.0.11-4.fc19.noarch isn't obsoleted > php-gettext-0:1.0.11-3.fc18.noarch isn't obsoleted > php-gettext-0:1.0.9-3.fc15.noarch is oldest > php-gettext < 0:1.0.1

Re: Full subpackage (-n type) with different version from main package

On Sun, 15 Sep 2013 12:09:21 -0500, Richard Shaw wrote: > >> Have you tried to tweak the %setup macro with the -n option ? > > > > > > Yes, I have to because the source name doesn't match the package name > > anymore... > > > > %setup -q -n %{srcname}-%{version} > > > > where srcname is defines at

Re: Full subpackage (-n type) with different version from main package

On Sun, 15 Sep 2013 14:04:09 -0500, Richard Shaw wrote: > > It could be that you're only confused about what %setup does. You really > > just need to tell it which build directory to enter, and that builddir > > will be entered automatically for the rest of the %prep, %build, %install > > and %che

Re: Full subpackage (-n type) with different version from main package

On Sun, 15 Sep 2013 15:07:58 -0500, Richard Shaw wrote: > Ok, apparently I've been unintentionally obtuse... > > The problem isn't (directly) with %setup. I know how to do that. > > The problem is when you have a (-n type) subpackage that is of a different > version from the main source. > > Ma

Re: ibus-typing-booster Obsoletes failure

On Mon, 16 Sep 2013 10:51:41 +0200, Mike FABIAN wrote: > > What is going on in package "ibus-typing-booster"? > > > > http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/ibus-typing-booster.git/plain/ibus-typing-booster.spec > > > > It attempts at obsoleting various packages, but since it does that with a > > spec

Re: Schedule for Thursday's FPC Meeting (2013-09-19 16:00 UTC)

On Wed, 18 Sep 2013 14:07:08 -0400, James Antill wrote: > Following is the list of topics that will be discussed in the FPC > meeting Thursday at 2013-09-19 16:00 UTC in #fedora-meeting-1 on > irc.freenode.net. > Links to all tickets below can be found at: > > https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/rep

Re: Package name conflict with retired package

On Fri, 13 Sep 2013 13:51:28 +0200, Sandro Mani wrote: > > On 13.09.2013 11:48, Michael Schwendt wrote: > > On Fri, 13 Sep 2013 09:54:49 +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: > > > >> On 09/12/2013 10:40 PM, Sandro Mani wrote: > >> > >>> I just posted a re

Re: does mc really require perl*?

On Wed, 11 Sep 2013 10:11:12 -0500, Chris Adams wrote: > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1006954 > The problem is that many (most?) programs won't handle this well. For > example, how does mc handle having its perl scripts installed but > non-functional? The "missing extfs.d scri

Re: Ananconda

On Sat, 21 Sep 2013 19:12:41 +0100, Phil Dobbin wrote: > Hi, all. > > I was wondering as to why Ananconda has no facility to overwrite a > distro already present on the target machine. I've studied it & apart > from destroying the existing partition with GParted there seems to be no > other wa

Re: Hello! Also, packaging baresip for Fedora

On Sun, 29 Sep 2013 11:59:43 -0400, Lars Kellogg-Stedman wrote: > Hello everyone, > > I've just submitted my first package review request to Fedora > (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1013363), which is for > "libre" (http://www.creytiv.com/re.html). This is a dependency for > "baresi

Re: Hello! Also, packaging baresip for Fedora

On Sun, 29 Sep 2013 12:38:25 -0400, Lars Kellogg-Stedman wrote: > [...] what the upstream Makefile > currently produces. I wasn't sure how invasive I should be in terms > of patching the upstream build process. The build output is "silent" using '@' command invocations in the Makefile. Patching

Re: Hello! Also, packaging baresip for Fedora

On Mon, 30 Sep 2013 10:35:33 +0300, Oron Peled wrote: > > On Sunday 29 September 2013 21:22:24 Lars Kellogg-Stedman wrote: > > I went ahead and generated a patch to the Makefile that uses the > > package version for the library version. > > That's wrong, as library versions represent API/ABI cha

Re: The final push for the application installer in Fedora 20

On Fri, 27 Sep 2013 11:24:45 +0100, Richard Hughes wrote: > In GNOME Software, we show a list of applications for each category > that we think are frikin’ awesome. Some have AppData[1], and some > don’t. For the ones that don’t yet have AppData it leaves the > responsibility of writing the long d

Re: Unresponsive maintainer - Steven Pritchard

On Tue, 01 Oct 2013 13:41:48 +0100, Paul Howarth wrote: > On 01/10/13 10:27, Juan Orti Alcaine wrote: > > Hello, I'm trying to contact to Steven Pritchard, maintainer of > > amavisd-new, FAS user: steve > > > > Anyone knows anything about him? There are bugs open without response > > for years: >

Re: How to exclude and arch for a noarch package?

On Fri, 4 Oct 2013 11:44:38 -0500, Bruno Wolff III wrote: > [...] But I thought there were issues with doing exclude > arch for a noarch package. It's an ugly work-around. "noarch <=> no particular arch <=> any arch". Hence not publishing a noarch package for some arch is questionable. Unlike or

Re: Building and submitting updates for Fedora 20

On Sun, 06 Oct 2013 19:11:41 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > I now see ... the version in f19 was greater than that in f20+rawhide, > for whatever reasons. > Actually, I wonder why AutoQA did not complain. There are no AutoQA comments in that bodhi ticket at all. Almost as if AutoQA has not been

AutoQA ??? (was: Re: Building and submitting updates for Fedora 20)

On Sun, 06 Oct 2013 15:09:24 -0500, Rex Dieter wrote: > Michael Schwendt wrote: > > > On Sun, 06 Oct 2013 19:11:41 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > > > >> I now see ... the version in f19 was greater than that in f20+rawhide, > >> for whatever reasons. > &

Re: ABRT is filling private bugs

On Thu, 26 Sep 2013 13:33:06 +0200, Jiri Moskovcak wrote: > Hi, > as some of you already noticed ABRT started filling a private bugs which > are only readable by reporter and assigned developer. This is an > unfortunate UX design together with [1]&[2]. Fixing those two bugzillas > should help,

Re: ABRT is filling private bugs

On Thu, 10 Oct 2013 13:09:23 +0200, I wrote: > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1017695 Visited http://bugz.fedoraproject.org/mc and noticed several tickets at the bottom are "private", too. This is a step into a wrong direction. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org ht

Re: Schedule for Thursday's FPC Meeting (2013-10-17 16:00 UTC)

On Wed, 16 Oct 2013 15:13:45 -0400, James Antill wrote: > If you would like to add something to this agenda, you can reply to > this e-mail, file a new ticket at https://fedorahosted.org/fpc, > e-mail me directly, or bring it up at the end of the meeting, during > the open floor topic. Note that a

Re: some people let packages in f20-updates-candidate

On Wed, 16 Oct 2013 23:12:11 +0100, Sérgio Basto wrote: > On Qua, 2013-10-16 at 23:57 +0200, Jochen Schmitt wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 08:59:17PM +0100, Sérgio Basto wrote: > > > > > But since humans fail there , who or how can create Bodhi updates for > > > them ? > > > > The easies wa

Re: Lack of response about sponsorship

On Wed, 16 Oct 2013 20:19:11 -0700, Luya Tshimbalanga wrote: > Hello developers and packagers, > > I recently received an email from the reporter[1] from rhbz #913289. > > related to the sponsorship. The review was done. One of sponsors > pro

Re: some people let packages in f20-updates-candidate

On Thu, 17 Oct 2013 01:50:34 +0100, Sérgio Basto wrote: > > > I know that, but I haven't permissions "sergiomb does not have commit > > > access to azureus" > > > > > > we need o provenpackager and the question is more how request a Bodhi > > > update to a provenpackager ? > > > > First find ou

Re: Lack of response about sponsorship

On Thu, 17 Oct 2013 15:56:00 +0200, مصعب الزعبي wrote: > LOL ^_^ > > I have 7 review requests , 5 of them ready , but no sponsors !!! Not true. You've had feedback from a sponsor already, but they are not marked as such in bugzilla, so you don't know that it is a potential sponsor for you. Furth

Re: Schedule for Thursday's FPC Meeting (2013-10-17 16:00 UTC)

On Thu, 17 Oct 2013 10:43:21 -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: > #topic https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/336 Please clarify the General > Naming Guidelines for packages > #info "Use lowercase and turn underscores into dashes unless there's a > compelling reason to follow a different upstream conve

Re: File-5.14 in rawhide - removing file-static subpackage

On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 09:45:51 -0400, Bill Peck wrote: > Being a static library, how could repoquery tell you if anyone was using it? Unconditional BuildRequires in a spec file become the src.rpm's Requires. If the packaging guidelines are followed, you can query for packages depending on -static p

Re: New cfitsio 3.330 in Rawhide and F19 (take 2)

On Sun, 24 Mar 2013 04:20:15 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote: > Sergio Pascual wrote: > > Oh great. I didn't thought that a link from libcfitsio-3.330.so.0 to > > libcfitsio.so would work. > > I have changed it now. The soname is (finally) libcfitsio-3.330.so.0, the > > library is libcfitsio-3.330.so.0

Re: New cfitsio 3.330 in Rawhide and F19 (take 2)

On Mon, 25 Mar 2013 01:44:49 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote: > Michael Schwendt wrote: > > "Standard" versioning is not beneficial here at all. As explained before, > > here the full version is part of the SONAME. Not just the major version. > > libcfitsio.so.3

Re: config.guess/config.sub for aarch64 (was Re: Mass Rebuild for Fedora 19)

On Mon, 25 Mar 2013 14:36:17 -0600, Orion Poplawski wrote: > Isn't config.sub/config.guess really a part of automake and it is that that > needs updating by upstream? For instance, configure in octave 3.6.4 says it > was generated by autoconf 2.69, but the config.guess/config.sub files don't >

Re: dependency problem with my (first) RPM

On Mon, 01 Apr 2013 10:17:29 +0200, Dario Faggioli wrote: > Error: Package: xen-tools-4.3.1-1.fc18.noarch (/xen-tools-4.3.1-1.fc18.noarch) >Requires: perl(any) > > I googled for this quite a bit, but I don't seem to be able to find > anything explaining how to make that "Requires: per

Re: New version a new version of Maxima in Sourceforge

On Wed, 3 Apr 2013 15:24:41 +, Eduardo Jorge wrote: >There is a fresh, new version of Maxima in sourceforge: 5.30.0. Please > update Maxima. Thank you. http://bugz.fedoraproject.org/maxima <- such a convenient page with a direct link into bugzilla exists for every src.rpm name. -- Fedo

Re: Prevent package builds on certain architectures

On Thu, 4 Apr 2013 11:43:21 +0200, Juerg Haefliger wrote: > I have a noarch package that has a requirement on another package > (qemu-img) that doesn't exist on i386 and ppc64. This results in 'broken > dependency' errors from koji. How do I tell koji not to build on these > arches? Your package

Re: Proven Packager help needed for alsa-lib

On Wed, 3 Apr 2013 16:54:03 -0500, Richard Shaw wrote: > On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 3:56 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: > > > Note that we're frozen for Alpha, so this won't go in stable until after > > Alpha release unless there's a legitimate reason to make it a freeze > > exception issue - https://fed

Re: Prevent package builds on certain architectures

On Thu, 04 Apr 2013 11:08:09 +0100, Paul Howarth wrote: > On 04/04/13 10:43, Juerg Haefliger wrote: > > I have a noarch package that has a requirement on another package > > (qemu-img) that doesn't exist on i386 and ppc64. This results in 'broken > > dependency' errors from koji. How do I tell koj

Re: Proven Packager help needed for alsa-lib

On Thu, 04 Apr 2013 08:26:07 -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > > It would have been possible for you to work around the missing > > #include by adding it to the source code you wanted to build. Never > > has there been a requirement to "wait for alsa-lib". > > > > Sure, but my interpretation of

Re: bison, flex have broken deps in rawhide

On Thu, 4 Apr 2013 09:32:24 -0500, Bruno Wolff III wrote: > On Thu, Apr 04, 2013 at 09:59:36 -0400, >Tom Lane wrote: > >DEBUG util.py:264: Error: Package: bison-2.7-1.fc20.x86_64 (build) > >DEBUG util.py:264: Requires: m4 >= 1.4 > >DEBUG util.py:264: Error: Package: flex-2.5.37-

Re: bison, flex have broken deps in rawhide

On Thu, 4 Apr 2013 10:57:03 -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > > Yeah, the rawhide build just finished OK. Still would like to know > > what happened the first time, though. If anyone wants to do a > > postmortem, the failed build was here: > > http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5212558

Re: Undeprecating libsidplay and fbg

On Sat, 06 Apr 2013 16:54:45 +0200, Hans de Goede wrote: > Hi all, > > just a quick headsup that I'm undeprecating libsidplay and fbg. > > libsidplay, review request: > 949165 - Review Request: libsidplay - SID chip music module playing library > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=94916

Re: Undeprecating libsidplay and fbg

On Sun, 07 Apr 2013 22:42:11 +0200, Hans de Goede wrote: > This is not only about free-ness this is also about some multimedia players > (notably the gstreamer framework) not having libsidplay v2 support. That's all? Will it ever support libsidplay v2 or libsidplayfp, if distributions continue t

Re: Undeprecating libsidplay and fbg

Amazingly, somebody even has forked the old Qt based XSIDPLAY to port it libsidplayfp and reSID: http://sourceforge.net/projects/xsidplay2/files/xsidplay2/ -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: Undeprecating libsidplay and fbg

On Mon, 08 Apr 2013 09:39:50 +0200, Hans de Goede wrote: > > If you worry just about GStreamer, I think it does a disservice to the > > community if it doesn't support any of the later and more capable SID > > music playing libs. > > Ok, you've got me convinced, I'll closing the review request an

Re: Weird broken deps.

On Mon, 8 Apr 2013 19:51:15 +0300, Gilboa Davara wrote: > Hello all, > > Can anyone help me make sense of the following broken-dep message? > > springlobby has broken dependencies in the rawhide tree: > On i386: > springlobby-0.169-2.fc20.i686 requires > bdb835272157f37cbb0067c02ab4fc437

Re: Autoconf in rawhide broken?

On Tue, 9 Apr 2013 14:39:56 -0500, Richard Shaw wrote: > I was trying to do a test build for aarch64 by adding autoreconf to the > spec file. I was getting an error that it doesn't exist. The error output tells you something different: > When I tried to mock chroot for Rawhide I got the followin

Re: Trimming (or obsoleting) %changelog?

On Wed, 17 Apr 2013 11:25:17 +1000, Dan Fruehauf wrote: > I tend to be against trimming. I was just looking at the binutils changelog > (goes back to 1997): > $ rpm -q --changelog binutils | wc -c > 54984 > > That's around 50K, and compressed (RPMs are compressed): > $ rpm -q --changelog binutils

Re: %doc path

On Sun, 14 Apr 2013 15:03:32 +0200, drago01 wrote: > On Sun, Apr 14, 2013 at 2:25 PM, Eugene Pivnev wrote: > > Sorry for stupid question - help me to find something like "doc must be in > > %{_docdir}/%{name}-%{version}/ but not in %{_docdir}/%{name}/" in > > guidelines. > > Or there is no such li

Re: Strange ssh / openldap linking problem

On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 09:36:34 +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > > I'm not sure whether or not this is a bug, but it sure looks strange. > > $ rpm -qf /usr/bin/ssh > openssh-clients-6.1p1-6.fc18.x86_64 > > $ ldd /usr/bin/ssh|grep ldap > libldap-2.4.so.2 => /lib64/libldap-2.4.so.2 (0x7fad27

Re: New dependent packages

On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 22:36:48 +0400, Eugene Pivnev wrote: > As I started new package (qtermwidget; in bodhi testing now) - when I > can start review request for package that depend on it (qterminal)? If you want the reviewers to be able to do scratch-builds in koji, submit a buildroot override re

Re: Self introduction, and maintaining MySQL package

On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 15:08:08 +0200, Bjorn Munch wrote: > Since I do not yet have a sponsor, I cannot upload to > fedorapeople.org. That is misinformation. Note the bottom of the following paragraph: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Join_the_package_collection_maintainers#Upload_Your_Package > Re

Re: Avoid a 32 bits package from being pushed into 64 bits repository

?id=957588 > > Is there any way I can prevent this rpm from being copied into the 64 > bits repositories? Typically, I can comment on dependency problems (including multilib related ones) provided that I know the exact scenario. That is either a detailed broken deps report

Re: Provenpackager mistakes

On Tue, 7 May 2013 09:12:33 -0600, Jerry James wrote: > On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 5:44 AM, Fedora Koji Build System wrote: > > Package: m4rie-20130416-1.fc19 > > Tag: f19-updates-candidate > > Status: complete > > Built by: pbrobinson > > ID: 416696 > > Started: Tue, 07 May 2013 11:35:25 UTC > > Fini

Hardcoded TMPDIR - anywhere else?

Hello everyone! I wonder whether any other application does a similar thing? /usr/bin/firefox contains this nasty piece: ## ## Use $MOZ_TMPDIR if set. Otherwise use /var/tmp instead of /tmp ## because of 1GB /tmp limit in Fedora 18 and later. ## See: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.c

Re: Hardcoded TMPDIR - anywhere else?

On Thu, 23 May 2013 03:00:51 -0400, DJ Delorie wrote: > > > ## Use $MOZ_TMPDIR if set. Otherwise use /var/tmp instead of /tmp > > ## because of 1GB /tmp limit in Fedora 18 and later. > > > > It is insane to hardcode /var/tmp. > > Considering the comment, they probably think it's insane to pu

Co-maintainer request

Hello packagers! Is there anyone with enough interest in Audacious (packages audacious*) as to help out as a co-maintainer? Then please sign up via pkgdb. I'm facing a serious lack of time due to house'n'roof renovation and accompanying things to do, and I cannot keep up with Fedora "duties" for a

Re: How to remove a *sub*package at end of life ?

On Mon, 10 Jun 2013 14:55:33 +0200, Remi Collet wrote: > Le 10/06/2013 14:46, Jiri Popelka a écrit : > > Hi all, > > > > up to F18 we've been shipping cups-php (PHP module) subpackage, but it's > > not been required by any other package. > > CUPS upstream dropped this module with cups-1.6 (since

Re: How to remove a *sub*package at end of life ?

On Wed, 12 Jun 2013 19:35:24 +0200, Miloslav Trmač wrote: > OTOH, if the user installs $package and after an upgrade the package > is gone and the functionality is gone as well, the upgrade _has > failed_, in a very real sense. Replace $package with $feature, and you get a similar scenario where

Re: F19 locale issue?

On Sun, 16 Jun 2013 13:36:37 +0200, Jan Dvořák wrote: > Hi, > > I don't have any idea how this happened: > > $ locale > locale: Cannot set LC_ALL to default locale: No such file or directory > LANG=en_US.utf8 > LC_CTYPE="en_US.utf8" > LC_NUMERIC=\'\' > LC_TIME=\'\' > LC_COLLATE="en_US.utf8" > LC

Re: F19 locale issue?

> On Sun, 16 Jun 2013 13:36:37 +0200, Jan Dvořák wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > I don't have any idea how this happened: > > > > $ locale > > locale: Cannot set LC_ALL to default locale: No such file or directory > > LANG=en_US.utf8 Mails should move to "test" list, btw, which is the list about F19.

Re: bugzilla.redhat.com vs upstream bug trackers

. What works well for some packages and some software projects, isn't always feasible. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_maintainer_responsibilities#Work_with_upstream Oh, and btw, we need more (co-)maintainers for packages. -- Michael Schwendt Fedora release 19 (Schrödinger

Re: bugzilla.redhat.com vs upstream bug trackers

On Mon, 17 Jun 2013 15:39:30 +0200, Emmanuel Seyman wrote: > * "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" [17/06/2013 12:49] : > > > > It's package maintainers responsibility to act as the liason between > > upstream and Fedora thus reporters only need to report in our > > Bugzilla instance. > > Even when upstream

Re: rpm and config.{guess, sub} (was [aarch64 bugs] dpkg: Does not support aarch64 in f19 and rawhide bug #925276)

On Mon, 17 Jun 2013 10:59:06 +0200, Björn Esser wrote: > I completely agree to this. Using `autoreconf -fi` in %build or %prep > should be mandatory in packages using autotools. One problem with that is, one cannot "blindly" run autoreconf -fi and expect it to be 100% compatible with the multitu

Re: bugzilla.redhat.com vs upstream bug trackers

On Mon, 17 Jun 2013 15:55:57 +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote: > Because if you cannot properly maintain the component in the > distribution the community is better of without it. Such rude comments don't meet the "be excellent to eachother" guidelines anymore, I'm afraid. Stop here, please.

Re: rpm and config.{guess, sub} (was [aarch64 bugs] dpkg: Does not support aarch64 in f19 and rawhide bug #925276)

On Tue, 18 Jun 2013 01:37:19 +0300, Oron Peled wrote: > Let me be more specific: > * If upstream uses a modern autotools, than "autoreconf" should be preferred > (IMO). > * If not, we should advise them to modernize (and if we can, try to help > them). > IIRC, that has been suggested in the m

Re: A need for build triggers & automatic rebuilds

Krzysztof, unrelated to this thread, but I've noticed the "Face" header in your email, which exceeds the maximum size of such headers. As such, it breaks the hard limits of some servers as well as clients, such as Claws Mail. http://quimby.gnus.org/circus/face/ -- Fedora release 19 (Schrödinge

Re: F19 upgrade pulls in a lot of i686 packages

On Sat, 29 Jun 2013 10:34:09 -0400, Steve Grubb wrote: > Did anyone notice all the i686 packages that get pulled in if you try to > upgrade from F18? My system has no i686 packages on it today. But > when I try to upgrade it starts getting i686 dependencies pulled in. It > starts like this: > >

Re: More unhelpful update descriptions

On Fri, 28 Jun 2013 19:44:22 -0500, Michael Catanzaro wrote: > There still seems to be an issue with the update descriptions that we > present in PackageKit. A lot of people just write "update to version > x.y.z" which is not great, but a whole lot better than some of the ones > we've been seeing

Re: F19 upgrade pulls in a lot of i686 packages

On Sun, 30 Jun 2013 17:03:58 +0200, Heiko Adams wrote: > But why doesn't prevent yum packages with arch != ($Basearch, noarch) > from being pulled in by default? Yum developers can answer that. Probably such a prevention technique is not implemented, because it would require checks that might not

Re: [Owner-change] Fedora packages ownership change

On Mon, 1 Jul 2013 18:14:46 + (UTC), nobody fedoraproject org wrote: > 9 packages were orphaned > php-pecl-apc [devel] was orphaned by remi > APC caches and optimizes PHP intermediate code > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/acls/name/php-pecl-apc Could the script be enhanced

Re: find-lang.sh search path

On Mon, 01 Jul 2013 20:36:25 +0200, Antonio wrote: > In qgifer package building (Bug#979702), I need to include language > *.qm files from source software. > > Currently, 'cmake' command puts language files into /usr/share/locale > directory but find-lang.sh doesn't locate them in $RPM_BUILD_ROOT

Re: find-lang.sh search path

On Mon, 01 Jul 2013 20:57:46 +0200, Antonio wrote: > On Mon 01 Jul 2013 08:53:44 PM CEST, Michael Schwendt wrote: > > On Mon, 01 Jul 2013 20:36:25 +0200, Antonio wrote: > > > >> In qgifer package building (Bug#979702), I need to include language > >>

Re: find-lang.sh search path

On Mon, 01 Jul 2013 23:28:00 +0200, Antonio Trande wrote: > >> "pl" is the file name without extension (pl.qm). In .spec file: > >> > >> ... %find_lang pl --with-qt %find_lang ru --with-qt ... > >> > >> Are they correct ? > > > > No. > > > > Multiple invocations of %find_lang is a consecutive

Re: Broken (glibc) dependencies in f19 update-repository metadata

On Sat, 6 Jul 2013 17:12:46 +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Sat, Jul 06, 2013 at 01:31:48PM +0300, Panu Matilainen wrote: > > > > Something is broken wrt f19 updates and updates-testing repo > > metadata, note the required glibc version between the rpm version in > > main repo vs updates-testing

Re: Submitted a package with wrong type

On Sun, 7 Jul 2013 01:24:40 +0800, Danishka Navin wrote: > I have submitted a new package named sugar-srilanka package to bodhi ( > fc17, fc18, and fc19) . It was submitted as bugfix instead of newpackage. > > Seems I can't change the settings after submission. That should be possible. At least

Re: Unversioned and >/=/>= obsoletes

On Fri, 2 Sep 2016 13:14:13 +0200, Igor Gnatenko wrote: > All guidelines mandate the use of have some number of packages (179 source rpms -> 292 binary rpms) with > unversioned Obsoletes or with >/=/>= Obsoletes. > > It is causing problems with upgrade (if package is getting re-added) > or with

Rawhide: Audacious 3.8 plugin API changes

Audacious 3.8 is landing in Rawhide and will need rebuilds of any external plugin packages, because the plugin API has changed again. You can find working rpms in fedora copr (or koji): https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/mschwendt/audacious-next/ I'll take care of the patching and rebuilding

Re: pdfedit

On Sun, 09 Dec 2012 17:07:37 +0100, Kai Engert wrote: > On Sun, 2012-12-09 at 16:49 +0100, Kai Engert wrote: > > In September, Ryan expressed interest to resurrect the pdfedit package, > > but I couldn't find follow-up messages nor koji builds. > > > > I made a patch to fix the build, see > > h

Re: Am I the only one who missed the election?

On Mon, 10 Dec 2012 06:50:59 -0800, Brian C. Lane wrote: > I just saw the Fedora election results, and was surprised to learn there > had been an election. After some digging I figured out what happened. > > Robyn sends her announce emails to: announce@, devel-announce@, > test-announce@ > > I s

Re: Am I the only one who missed the election?

On Mon, 10 Dec 2012 10:20:55 -0500 (EST), Jaroslav Reznik wrote: > > > > > > I think this is not good - every contributor should be subscribed > > > to > > > announce list (with cla_done). > > > > So you're blaming people who didn't recieve the email they expected > > on > > devel-announce@ for

<    5   6   7   8   9   10   11   12   13   14   >