On Mon, 18 Jan 2010, Seth Vidal wrote:
>
> On Mon, 18 Jan 2010, Josephine Tannhäuser wrote:
>
>> should be possible, we have an (old but we have one) apt
>>
>
> unless I'm reading that forum thread wrong - it sure seems like apt-fast
> requires axel's repo? If that's true then I think it nixes an
On Mon, 25 Jan 2010, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 02:08:10PM -0500, Bill Nottingham wrote:
>> - If the file in both packages is identical, installation is allowed
>> and the file is written
>> - If the file in both packages is an ELF binary, the file used is the
>> file
On Tue, 26 Jan 2010, Panu Matilainen wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Jan 2010, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 02:08:10PM -0500, Bill Nottingham wrote:
>>> - If the file in both packages is identical, installation is allowed
>>> and the file is wri
On Tue, 26 Jan 2010, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 12:35:19PM +0200, Panu Matilainen wrote:
>> ...except looking at libguestfs-1.0.75-1.fc12, it *has* been built with
>> internal dependency generator, and it gives:
On Tue, 26 Jan 2010, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 06:43:35PM +0200, Panu Matilainen wrote:
>> Note that rpm < 4.6.0 did behave differently here: packages with
>> conflicting files were allowed to be installed in the same transaction but
>> not
On Tue, 26 Jan 2010, Till Maas wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 12:13:33PM +0200, Panu Matilainen wrote:
>
>> %global _use_internal_dependency_generator 0
>>
>> The external dependency generator doesn't create the file "coloring" that
>> the m
On Mon, 1 Feb 2010, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> Owen Taylor (otay...@redhat.com) said:
>> Looking at the build logs for F-12, e.g.:
>>
>> http://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org/packages/glib2/2.22.4/1.fc12/data/logs/i686/build.log
>>
>> we seem to have things set up to run configure as:
>>
>> --build=i38
On Tue, 2 Feb 2010, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
>
> Le Mar 2 février 2010 11:35, Kevin Kofler a écrit :
>>
>> Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
>>> That is your interpretation. I see nothing on this page to support this
>>> claim. And actually it is contrary to format #3 logic, since its main
>>> difference with o
On Wed, 1 Sep 2010, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>
> b) To equippe the rpm/yum/mock etc. infrastructure with a mechanism to
> pull-in "foreign binaries" into a sys-root (E.g. to install Fedora
> *.ppc.rpm rpms into /usr/ppc-redhat/sys-root). So far, such mechanism
> doesn't exist.
You should be able to f
On Fri, 1 Oct 2010, Mike McLean wrote:
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=626209
> Reported against F13, but I've encountered it in F14 Beta.
>
> Seems like more folks ought to be impacted by this bug that seem to
> be, so I wonder what is going on here. Do less folks use ssh-add that
On Thu, 28 Oct 2010, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
>> "JN" == Joe Nall writes:
>
> JN> On Oct 28, 2010, at 5:08 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>
>>> More to the point, I can easily see the setuid bit easily on a
>>> binary.
>>> How do I tell if these strange/hidden "capabilities" are
>>> present
FYI, there appears to be a bug in the just-released rpm-4.9.1 which
causes legitimate specs to fail with "Installed (but unpackaged) file(s)
found" errors. This happens when recursively included directories in
%files are marked with trailing /, eg
%{_includedir}/mypkg works everywhere, but %{_
On 07/21/2011 06:37 AM, Iain Arnell wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 4:16 PM, Rex Dieter wrote:
>> Panu Matilainen wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> FYI, there appears to be a bug in the just-released rpm-4.9.1 which
>>> causes legitimate specs to fail with "Insta
On 07/27/2011 09:39 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> 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 brea
Hi all,
Due to the brown paperbag bug of rpm-4.9.1 causing unwanted trailing
slashes on directories (with various nasty side-effects), the following
packages in rawhide require rebuilding, the sooner the better to stop
spreading the damage:
accountsservice-0.6.13-1.fc16.src.rpm
akonadi-1.6.0-3
Hi all,
Due to the brown paperbag bug of rpm-4.9.1 causing unwanted trailing
slashes on directories (with various nasty side-effects), the following
packages in F16 require rebuilding. The sooner the better to stop
spreading the damage but at any rate, before F16 final:
accountsservice-0.6.13-
On 08/17/2011 12:10 PM, Panu Matilainen wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Due to the brown paperbag bug of rpm-4.9.1 causing unwanted trailing
> slashes on directories (with various nasty side-effects), the following
> packages in rawhide require rebuilding, the sooner the better to stop
> sp
On 08/17/2011 05:10 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Panu Matilainen writes:
>> Due to the brown paperbag bug of rpm-4.9.1 causing unwanted trailing
>> slashes on directories (with various nasty side-effects), the following
>> packages in F16 require rebuilding. ...
>> This l
On 09/06/2011 05:16 PM, Richard Shaw wrote:
> Most of the packages I work with have very few patches so it's not all
> that difficult, but there are a couple of packages I'm working with
> that have a lot of patches and one of them has a very active upstream
> (which is a good thing!) but that also
On 09/06/2011 09:53 PM, Matej Cepl wrote:
> Dne 6.9.2011 16:29, Panu Matilainen napsal(a):
>>> I like the idea of quilt but I can't seem to find the magic recipe to
>>> get it to integrate with rpmbuild.
Please mind your quotes, I didn't write the above.
>
On 09/08/2011 03:44 AM, Tony Breeds wrote:
> Hi All,
> On a related but different note. How hard would it be to get
> yum-builddep to take an --arch arg to that we can esily get the 32-bit
> builddeps on a 64-bit system?
It's been recently implemented at upstream, see
https://bugzilla.redh
On 09/16/2011 11:53 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Sep 2011 13:49:36 -0400, SV (seth) wrote:
>
>> There are still a largish number of packages out there that have things
>> like:
>>
>> Requires: foo
>>
>> where they really want:
>> Requires: foo(64bit)
>
> Fixing this in some packages is
On 09/17/2011 05:58 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>
>
> On 09/17/2011 07:53 PM, Panu Matilainen wrote:
>> The near-flamefest on this thread over whose depsolver is the best is
>> largely besides the point: in a perfect world there would be just one
>> Grand Unified Depsolve
On 09/18/2011 08:40 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> On 09/17/2011 01:02 AM, Richard Hughes wrote:
>> On 16 September 2011 20:02, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>>> Is Zif a SAT solver?
>> No, but I've been playing a few times with libsatsolver in the past year or
>> so.
On 09/20/2011 08:19 PM, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> Le mardi 20 septembre 2011 à 17:10 +0200, Miloslav Trmač a écrit :
>
>> So when _is_ a good time to do binary-incompatible changes to libraries?
>
> The answer is obvious - in rawhide, before branching point. Anything
> after branching will interact
On 09/20/2011 09:18 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:
> On Sep 20, 2011, at 11:11 AM, Panu Matilainen wrote:
>>
>> My personal pet-peeve with the current branching policy is that the
>> mass-branching happens way way too early for packages where there are no
>> significant new d
On 10/11/2011 08:16 PM, Jan Vcelak wrote:
> On Tuesday 11 October 2011 18:22:34, Tomi Leppikangas wrote:
>> Kashyap Chamarthy writes:
>>> Running Transaction Check
>>> ERROR with transaction check vs depsolve:
>>> /bin/sh is needed by groff-base-1.21-5.fc17.x86_64
>>
>> I have this same problem whe
On 10/13/2011 01:30 AM, Bojan Smojver wrote:
> This is probably not worthy of a bug report, but may still be useful to
> confirm a problem that someone else may have experienced.
>
> I resurrected an old notebook (HP Pavilion ZE4201) to test some stuff
> under relatively low memory conditions (768
On 10/13/2011 03:36 AM, Bojan Smojver wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-10-13 at 11:15 +1100, Bojan Smojver wrote:
>> Let's see whether this is something that can be replicated.
>
> When the installation finished and I pressed the reboot button, a
> message flashed briefly at the bottom of the screen. Somethin
On 05/27/2011 07:01 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
>
> Am 27.05.2011 17:54, schrieb Kevin Kofler:
>> Reindl Harald wrote:
>>> yes, 150 MB
>>
>> That's not enough. Try again with 1 or 2 GiB of swap space
>
> as said, i had a machine with 5 GB swap and the braindead oom-killer
> started to shoot down pro
On 06/07/2011 05:23 PM, Martin Langhoff wrote:
> I am hacking on a slighly modified kernel spec file for an OLPC arm
> test kernel. While chasing strange build errors, I find that
> %{image_install_path} isn't always being expanded.
>
> The resulting build script looks like
>
> http://fpaste.or
On 06/10/2011 02:28 AM, Josh Stone wrote:
> On 06/02/2011 01:26 PM, Josh Stone wrote:
>> Our dtrace script in systemtap-sdt-devel starts "#!/usr/bin/python".
>> Usually this leads to an implicit "Requires: /usr/bin/python", but for
>> some reason our rawhide build did not get this. The F15, F14, a
On 06/11/2011 12:14 AM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Jun 2011 13:59:18 +0300
> Panu Matilainen wrote:
>
>> On 06/10/2011 02:28 AM, Josh Stone wrote:
>>> On 06/02/2011 01:26 PM, Josh Stone wrote:
>>>> Our dtrace script in systemtap-sdt-devel starts
>>
On 06/11/2011 10:15 AM, Panu Matilainen wrote:
> On 06/11/2011 12:14 AM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
>> On Fri, 10 Jun 2011 13:59:18 +0300
>> Panu Matilainen wrote:
>>
>>> On 06/10/2011 02:28 AM, Josh Stone wrote:
>>>> On 06/02/2011 01:26 PM, Josh Stone wrote
On 06/11/2011 12:14 AM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Jun 2011 13:59:18 +0300
> Panu Matilainen wrote:
>
>> On 06/10/2011 02:28 AM, Josh Stone wrote:
>>> On 06/02/2011 01:26 PM, Josh Stone wrote:
>>>> Our dtrace script in systemtap-sdt-devel starts
>>
On 06/11/2011 12:14 AM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Jun 2011 13:59:18 +0300
> Panu Matilainen wrote:
>
>> On 06/10/2011 02:28 AM, Josh Stone wrote:
>>> On 06/02/2011 01:26 PM, Josh Stone wrote:
>>>> Our dtrace script in systemtap-sdt-devel starts
>>
On Tue, 2 Feb 2010, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> Panu Matilainen (pmati...@laiskiainen.org) said:
>>> %{_host} is set by the rpm package in the macros file, %{_build} defaults
>>> to the value of %{_host}. %{_target_platform} comes from --target on
>>> the command line,
On Wed, 3 Feb 2010, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On 02/03/2010 10:05 AM, Panu Matilainen wrote:
>> On Tue, 2 Feb 2010, Bill Nottingham wrote:
>>
>>> Panu Matilainen (pmati...@laiskiainen.org) said:
>>>>> %{_host} is set by the rpm package in the macros file,
On Tue, 9 Feb 2010, Jonathan Underwood wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I just noticed this in a build.log for a successfully built package in koji:
>
> /usr/lib/rpm/pythondeps.sh: line 8: python: command not found
> [repeated 6 times]
>
> That python isn't found isn't a surprise, as for the particular
> package
On Fri, 12 Feb 2010, Milos Jakubicek wrote:
> Oh, I didn't really notice how your repoquery looks like before.
> Libarchive is ok, but there are others:
>
>> repoquery --whatrequires --alldeps lzma lzma-libs lzma-devel
> --enablerepo=rawhide
> rpm-build-0:4.7.1-6.fc12.x86_64
> rpm-build-0:4.8.0-9
On Mon, 1 Mar 2010, Doug Ledford wrote:
>
> One could argue that the current bodhi karma system is simply too
> simplistic for real use cases. Maybe instead of just +1 -1, there
> should be:
>
> Fixes my problem
> Works for me (someone testing that didn't necessarily have any of the
> problem supp
On Tue, 2 Mar 2010, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Doug Ledford wrote:
>> Fixes my problem
>> Works for me (someone testing that didn't necessarily have any of the
>> problem supposedly fixed by this update just noting that their system
>> still works ok with the update)
>> Doesn't fix my problem (but does
On Thu, 4 Mar 2010, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Enrico Scholz wrote:
>> %post can give out something; e.g. '%post failed' which would happen
>> here due to the redhat-lsb bug. I just give out a more useful message
>> than '%post failed' which helps people to identify the problem.
>
> %post MUST *NEVER*
On Thu, 4 Mar 2010, Tom \spot\ Callaway wrote:
> On 03/04/2010 05:21 AM, Kalev Lember wrote:
>> On 03/04/2010 12:07 PM, Richard Hughes wrote:
>>> On 3 March 2010 21:45, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
Here are the list of changes to the Fedora Packaging Guidelines:
>>>
>>> I've done some updates,
I've been refraining from commenting on these update-threads but as it
seems folks have started actually counting the pro semi-rolling vs
conservative updates style replies... for the record:
On Sun, 7 Mar 2010, Kalev Lember wrote:
>
> I'd personally want to be able to _choose_ if and when I wa
On 11/09/2011 08:49 PM, Jim Meyering wrote:
> Richard Shaw wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 11:18 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> postgresql is currently failing to rebuild in rawhide:
>>> http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3499379
>>> This seems quite repeatable, in koji, but the package
On 01/31/2012 11:30 PM, James Antill wrote:
On Tue, 2012-01-31 at 15:58 -0500, Bill Nottingham wrote:
James Antill (ja...@fedoraproject.org) said:
[root@nostromo ~]# mv /bin /cow
[root@nostromo ~]# /cow/ln -s /cow /bin
[root@nostromo ~]# rpm -qf /cow/bash
bash-4.2.20-1.fc16.x86_64
[root@nostrom
On 02/01/2012 04:41 PM, Chris Adams wrote:
Once upon a time, Emanuel Rietveld said:
On 02/01/2012 01:32 PM, Panu Matilainen wrote:
To-be-installed files obviously have no on-disk fingerprints, so it
wont work for initial installation. So yes, those "fake" compatibility
provides
On 02/01/2012 06:38 PM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
Panu Matilainen (pmati...@laiskiainen.org) said:
To-be-installed files obviously have no on-disk fingerprints, so it
wont work for initial installation. So yes, those "fake" compatibility
provides are needed. Strictly speaking, com
On 02/11/2012 02:52 PM, Andrea Musuruane wrote:
Hi all,
a reporter just submitted this bug against tecnoballz:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=789544
After closer inspection, I see that the RPM doesn't require the needed
libraries:
$ rpm -q --requires tecnoballz
/bin/sh
/bin/sh
On 02/11/2012 07:06 PM, Orion Poplawski wrote:
On 02/11/2012 09:43 AM, Panu Matilainen wrote:
It's a bug in rpmbuild's file classification rules, should be fixed in
this update: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-1504
While this obviously isn't fault of tecnob
On 02/15/2012 11:55 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 15.02.2012 10:53, schrieb Brendan Jones:
On 02/15/2012 10:47 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 14.02.2012 19:16, schrieb "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson":
On 02/14/2012 10:23 AM, Alfredo Ferrari wrote:
Do the systemd maintainers ever read bug reports BTW?
On 02/15/2012 07:10 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 15.02.2012 17:59, schrieb Rahul Sundaram:
On 02/15/2012 05:06 PM, Steve Clark wrote:
On 02/15/2012 05:49 AM, Panu Matilainen wrote:
It might be a shocking revelation to you but not everybody uses or
relies their world on bash autocompletion
On 02/27/2012 06:00 PM, John Reiser wrote:
On 02/27/2012 07:29 AM, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 14:00:51 +,
Frank Murphy wrote:
On 27/02/12 13:52, elison.ni...@gmail.com wrote:
4) Quit on single CTRL-C. Users expect an application to quit on
pressing CTRL-C.
Reason t
On 03/01/2012 06:52 PM, Petr Pisar wrote:
As new Fedora release looms ahead, I'd like open discussion about
verifying distribution integrity. In short---where to get public key for
verifying RPM signatures.
If I remember correctly, you are asked to accept new signing key by rpm
while installing
On 03/02/2012 02:00 PM, Matthias Runge wrote:
On 02/03/12 12:52, Aleksandar Kurtakov wrote:
If a maintainer doesn't respond to a bug repord with the status
new in a week - give commit rights to the reporter in pkgdb
so he/she can fix it himself.
I kind a' like this proposal. You're speaking of
Hey,
I'm wondering whether there's some kind of disconnect in the feature
process at the moment: In order to avoid the kind of last-minute
inclusion craze that everybody hates, we decided to postpone rpm-4.10
for F18 and hoped to get a pre-release version into rawhide right after
branching F
On 03/05/2012 08:14 PM, Robyn Bergeron wrote:
On 03/05/2012 07:54 AM, Josh Boyer wrote:
On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 10:40 AM, Panu Matilainen
wrote:
Hey,
I'm wondering whether there's some kind of disconnect in the feature
process
at the moment: In order to avoid the kind of last-minute
On 03/05/2012 05:54 PM, Josh Boyer wrote:
On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 10:40 AM, Panu Matilainen
wrote:
Hey,
I'm wondering whether there's some kind of disconnect in the feature process
at the moment: In order to avoid the kind of last-minute inclusion craze
that everybody hates, we
We're a bit late to our own party this year but rpm 4.10 pre-release
version should be headed for rawhide in not too far future. In the
meanwhile, in what is starting to become a tradition at this point,
Fedora compatible [*] SRPM(s) are available at
http://laiskiainen.org/rpm/srpms/ for brav
On 03/07/2012 04:09 PM, Panu Matilainen wrote:
We're a bit late to our own party this year but rpm 4.10 pre-release
version should be headed for rawhide in not too far future. In the
meanwhile, in what is starting to become a tradition at this point,
Fedora compatible [*] SRPM(s) are avai
As http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/RPM4.10 got accepted in
yesterday's FESCo meeting, here come the bits.
For details see http://rpm.org/wiki/Releases/4.10.0, but the bottom line
is that for business-as-usual operations you shouldn't really notice
much anything at all. Well, apart fro
On 03/20/2012 11:52 AM, Panu Matilainen wrote:
As http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/RPM4.10 got accepted in
yesterday's FESCo meeting, here come the bits.
For details see http://rpm.org/wiki/Releases/4.10.0, but the bottom line
is that for business-as-usual operations you shouldn
On 03/20/2012 01:49 PM, Jonathan Dieter wrote:
On Tue, 2012-03-20 at 13:08 +0200, Panu Matilainen wrote:
So... first hickup that broke koji: the buildroot now requires deltarpm
which needs rebuilding due to to the soname bump before we can proceed.
I dont recall this being an issue before but I
On 03/20/2012 05:10 PM, Jonathan Dieter wrote:
On Tue, 2012-03-20 at 16:15 +0200, Panu Matilainen wrote:
On 03/20/2012 01:49 PM, Jonathan Dieter wrote:
On Tue, 2012-03-20 at 13:08 +0200, Panu Matilainen wrote:
So... first hickup that broke koji: the buildroot now requires deltarpm
which needs
On Tue, 9 Nov 2010, Michal Hlavinka wrote:
> On Monday, November 08, 2010 15:49:28 Michal Hlavinka wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I'm trying to find out what are differences between environment for local
>> rpm build and usual user's environment. I've added regression tests to
>> %check section of ksh spec f
On Thu, 18 Nov 2010, Ville Skyttä wrote:
> On Wednesday 17 November 2010, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>> Ville Skyttä wrote:
>> > I'd get rid of the versioned javadoc dir altogether, and simply install
>> > to %{_javadocdir}/%{name}. Unversioned is good for bookmarking and
>> > javadoc crosslinking.
>>
On Tue, 23 Nov 2010, Paul Howarth wrote:
> On 23/11/10 10:11, Patrick MONNERAT wrote:
>> While applying today's updates on a machine running a slapd server, the
>> following error occurred:
>>
>> Stopping slapd: [ OK ]
>> Checking configuration files for slapd: [FAILED]
>> bdb(dc=linuxdev,dc=dat
On Tue, 23 Nov 2010, Panu Matilainen wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Nov 2010, Paul Howarth wrote:
>
>> On 23/11/10 10:11, Patrick MONNERAT wrote:
>>> While applying today's updates on a machine running a slapd server, the
>>> following error occurred:
>>&g
On Tue, 23 Nov 2010, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On 11/23/2010 05:30 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:
>> On 11/23/10 5:55 AM, Jan Vcelak wrote:
>>> Hi!
>>>
>>> Currently, the upgrade process in openldap looks like this:
>>> * during db4 package upgrade run db_upgrade (%triggerin and %triggerun)
>>> * if minor
On Tue, 23 Nov 2010, Jan Vcelak wrote:
> On Tuesday 23 November 2010 19:13:09, Panu Matilainen wrote:
>> Another related thing is that Berkeley DB which openldap uses is
>> notoriously picky about getting updated. I'm fairly certain openldap does
>> not update their bund
It's that time of year again, although there seems to be an off-by-one bug
in the calendar system causing some inconsistency in the timing wrt last
year :P
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2009-November/042339.html
Anyway, before going to beta and starting the inevitable Fedora Fe
On Sun, 28 Nov 2010, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Panu Matilainen wrote:
>> The draft release notes are at http://rpm.org/wiki/Releases/4.9.0
>
> 1. This change:
> | Packages with no files can now omit the %files section and still have
> | packages generated.
> is go
On Sat, 27 Nov 2010, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> On 11/26/2010 04:50 PM, Panu Matilainen wrote:
>> The draft release notes are at http://rpm.org/wiki/Releases/4.9.0
>> and Fedora compatible SRPM(s) can be found at
>> http://laiskiainen.org/rpm/srpms/
>
> I am using this no
On Sun, 28 Nov 2010, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> On 11/28/2010 04:17 PM, Panu Matilainen wrote:
>>
>> The new dependency generator is where I suspect some regressions might
>> be lurking - try building packages (for example ones that you maintain),
>> check that
On Sun, 28 Nov 2010, Simo Sorce wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Nov 2010 12:15:52 +0200 (EET)
> Panu Matilainen wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 28 Nov 2010, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>>
>>> Panu Matilainen wrote:
>>>> The draft release notes are at http://rpm.org/wiki/Releases/4.
On Mon, 29 Nov 2010, Marcela Mašláňová wrote:
> On 11/26/2010 12:20 PM, Panu Matilainen wrote:
>> It's that time of year again, although there seems to be an off-by-one bug
>> in the calendar system causing some inconsistency in the timing wrt last
>> year :P
>>
On Mon, 29 Nov 2010, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
>>>>>> "PM" == Panu Matilainen writes:
>
> PM> In particular, I'm interested in feedback on the new, pluggable and
> PM> enhanced dependency extration system. Documentation is scarce at the
>
On Tue, 30 Nov 2010, Erik van Pienbroek wrote:
> Panu Matilainen schreef op vr 26-11-2010 om 13:20 [+0200]:
>> In particular, I'm interested in feedback on the new, pluggable and
>> enhanced dependency extration system. Documentation is scarce at the
>> moment but some b
On Tue, 30 Nov 2010, Erik van Pienbroek wrote:
> Panu Matilainen schreef op di 30-11-2010 om 22:10 [+0200]:
>> On Tue, 30 Nov 2010, Erik van Pienbroek wrote:
>>> If I understand your blog entry correctly then we (the Fedora MinGW SIG)
>>> are recommended
On Mon, 29 Nov 2010, Panu Matilainen wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Nov 2010, Marcela Mašláňová wrote:
>> Hello,
>> I tried rebuild RPM on F-14. New RPM doesn't find all provides as it should.
>> Example:
>> RPM 4.9.alpha
>> rpm -qp --provides perl-CGI-3.50-1.fc1
On Tue, 30 Nov 2010, Panu Matilainen wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Nov 2010, Panu Matilainen wrote:
>> On Mon, 29 Nov 2010, Marcela Mašláňová wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>> I tried rebuild RPM on F-14. New RPM doesn't find all provides as it should.
>>> Example:
>>
On Fri, 10 Dec 2010, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 08:40:23PM +0900, Mamoru Tasaka wrote:
>> Thomas Moschny wrote, at 12/10/2010 08:19 PM +9:00:
>>> That seems by far the cleanest solution to me. Especially
>>> development-oriented packages often contain example directories;
>>>
On Thu, 16 Dec 2010, Ville Skyttä wrote:
> On Thursday 16 December 2010, Jon Masters wrote:
>> On Wed, 2010-12-15 at 23:57 +0200, Ville Skyttä wrote:
>> But how many packages nowadays require a man page reader simply because
>> > they install man pages?
>>
>> Well, since it's a guideline, it's wo
On Mon, 20 Dec 2010, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Paulo Cavalcanti wrote:
>> I think Requires(hint) should have this function, but in fact it enforces
>> the same way as just an ordinary Requires.
>
> RPM (at least rpm.org RPM, which we use; I have no idea about what rpm5.org
> does) doesn't actually sup
On Tue, 21 Dec 2010, Tom Lane wrote:
> I'm fooling around with trying to update mysql from 5.1.x to 5.5.x.
> One of the things that's happened in that transition is that they've
> dropped the separate "libmysqlclient_r.so" library --- presumably
> everything in regular "libmysqlclient.so" is now t
Been preparing + testing stuff for the last couple of days and the new rpm
(details at http://rpm.org/wiki/Releases/4.9.0) is likely to land in
rawhide tomorrow.
It's not supposed to eat anything but packages for breakfast but as usual
safe's better than sorry - it would not be a bad idea to b
On Sat, 1 Jan 2011, Jonathan Dieter wrote:
> On Sat, 2011-01-01 at 12:22 -0800, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
>> On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 05:38:30PM +0200, Jonathan Dieter wrote:
>>> I now seem to be running into some problems building deltarpm for
>>> Rawhide and it seems to be tied into this. See
>>> h
On Tue, 18 Jan 2011, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>
> DEBUG util.py:247: ERROR with rpm_check_debug vs depsolve:
> DEBUG util.py:247: librpm.so.1()(64bit) is needed by
> deltarpm-3.6-0.4.20100708git.fc15.x86_64
> DEBUG util.py:247: librpmio.so.1()(64bit) is needed by
> deltarpm-3.6-0.4.20100708g
On 01/24/2011 09:02 PM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> Rich Megginson (rmegg...@redhat.com) said:
>> Ok. Do I need any Requires at all for this? Or should I just
>> remove that line from the spec?
>
> I believe folding any requirements for %posttrans scripts into
> 'Requires(post)' should be sufficient
On 01/24/2011 11:16 PM, Matt McCutchen wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-01-24 at 14:02 -0500, Bill Nottingham wrote:
>> I believe folding any requirements for %posttrans scripts into
>> 'Requires(post)' should be sufficient.
>
> I don't think so... IIUC, Requires(post) only applies until installation
> is com
On 01/25/2011 02:54 PM, Panu Matilainen wrote:
> On 01/24/2011 11:16 PM, Matt McCutchen wrote:
>> On Mon, 2011-01-24 at 14:02 -0500, Bill Nottingham wrote:
>>> I believe folding any requirements for %posttrans scripts into
>>> 'Requires(post)' should be suffi
On 01/27/2011 10:24 AM, Adrian Reber wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 06:52:50PM +0100, Adrian Reber wrote:
>> I was trying to do a scratch build an got following error:
>>
>> error: line 78: Bad Requireflags: qualifiers: Requires(posttrans):
>> /sbin/service
>>
>> Is Requires(posttrans) deprecate
On 02/03/2011 09:42 AM, Paul Howarth wrote:
> On Wed, 02 Feb 2011 19:59:07 -0500
> Tom Lane wrote:
>
>> For the last week or so I've been getting broken-dependencies nagmail
>> about
>>
>> mysql-test-5.5.8-6.fc15.x86_64 requires perl(mtr_misc.pl)
>>
>> The depchecker is correct about that: th
On 02/03/2011 12:28 PM, Paul Howarth wrote:
> On 03/02/11 10:15, Panu Matilainen wrote:
>> On 02/03/2011 09:42 AM, Paul Howarth wrote:
>>> On Wed, 02 Feb 2011 19:59:07 -0500
>>> Tom Lanewrote:
>>>
>>>> For the last week or so I'v
On 02/05/2011 05:21 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 05, 2011 at 01:28:03PM +, Rawhide Report wrote:
>> frama-c-1.5-2.fc15.x86_64 requires ocaml(GEdit) = 0:19e02eb8d58960097f5
> [etc]
>
>> ocaml-lablgtk-2.14.2-2.fc15
>> ---
>> * Fri Feb 04 2011 Richard W.
On 02/06/2011 09:54 AM, Panu Matilainen wrote:
> On 02/05/2011 05:21 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>> On Sat, Feb 05, 2011 at 01:28:03PM +, Rawhide Report wrote:
>>> frama-c-1.5-2.fc15.x86_64 requires ocaml(GEdit) = 0:19e02eb8d58960097f5
>> [etc]
>>
&
On 02/21/2011 11:23 AM, Marcela Mašláňová wrote:
> On 02/19/2011 09:10 PM, Remi Collet wrote:
>> Le 19/02/2011 20:25, Rawhide Report a écrit :
>>
>>> gmusicbrowser-1.0.2-2.fc15.noarch requires perl(Gtk2::ScrolledWindow)
>>> gmusicbrowser-1.0.2-2.fc15.noarch requires perl(Gtk2::DrawingArea)
On 02/21/2011 11:47 AM, Remi Collet wrote:
> Le 21/02/2011 10:36, Panu Matilainen a écrit :
>> A more likely candidate for new dependencies appearing is that rpm now
>> collects dependencies from perl's "use base qw" syntax, which older
>> versions did not.
&
On 02/21/2011 12:28 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 02/21/2011 10:36 AM, Panu Matilainen wrote:
On 02/21/2011 11:23 AM, Marcela Mašláňová wrote:
On 02/19/2011 09:10 PM, Remi Collet wrote:
Le 19/02/2011 20:25, Rawhide Report a écrit :
gmusicbrowser-1.0.2-2.fc15.noarch requires perl(Gtk2
1 - 100 of 706 matches
Mail list logo
