Re: EPEL (was Re: RFC: Proposal for a more agile "Fedora.next" (draft of my Flock talk))

Dne 22.7.2013 18:29, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" napsal(a): As for cruft in the spec files, why not bring a proposal to the FPC to update the packaging guidelines stating that Fedora spec files must not contain RHEL/EPEL macros? Then the git branches would be maintained separately and the spec file

rubygem-i18n_data license change

Hi, rubygem-i18n_data 0.4.0 license changed from 'Public Domain' to 'MIT'. Thanks Vít -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: Introduction

Dne 15.8.2013 23:39, Brian Schonecker napsal(a): Per request at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Join_the_package_collection_maintainers?rd=PackageMaintainers/Join I would like to introduce myself. Who am I? Brian Schonecker, RHCE and complete novice at building packages? What will I contrib

Re: Fedora 20 Changes Freeze today & tracking bugs

Dne 20.8.2013 15:37, Jaroslav Reznik napsal(a): * What should I do with my Change now? According to the policy, the Change has to be substantially complete and in a testable state; enabled by default -- if so specified by the Change. If the above applies for you Change, please set bug status to M

Re: Self Introduction

Dne 20.8.2013 20:28, Frankie Onuonga napsal(a): On Tue, 2013-08-20 at 13:01 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote: On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 07:35:54PM +0300, Frankie Onuonga wrote: > I am hoping to assist in packaging if required. what are you interested in? Anything specific? Languages? I would like

Re: F21 schedule: what would you do with more time?

Dne 23.8.2013 10:24, Peter Robinson napsal(a): On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 4:12 PM, Matthew Miller mailto:mat...@fedoraproject.org>> wrote: On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 11:08:18PM +0800, Christopher Meng wrote: > > What things we do _now_ could be > > improved with the investment of some eff

Re: Dear Fedora Packagers!

Dne 28.8.2013 16:27, Miloslav Trmač napsal(a): On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 3:15 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote: Thanks for your interest. It is a reoccuring problem that both the rename request submitter *and* the reviewer get the Obsoletes tags wrong. Perhaps the guidelines should be more clear, then

Re: Builder update

Dne 29.8.2013 08:05, Panu Matilainen napsal(a): For a practical example of the timescale of this "process" as things have been so far: opt-in install-time macro-expansion of scriptlets was implemented upstream in March 2010 and has been in Fedora since F15. Yet this relatively trivial thing *

Re: Running a command in spec file?

Dne 29.8.2013 10:19, Stanislav Ochotnicky napsal(a): Quoting Dave Johansen (2013-08-28 21:58:38) On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 9:13 AM, Remi Collet wrote: Le 28/08/2013 18:09, Dave Johansen a écrit : I'm trying to make a spec file that uses the devtoolset in RHEL 5/6 ( rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHEA-20

Re: Running a command in spec file?

Dne 29.8.2013 11:17, Miroslav Suchý napsal(a): On 08/29/2013 10:19 AM, Stanislav Ochotnicky wrote: %{?scl:scl enable %{scl} "} # this is a shell command 1 command 2 ... %{?scl:"} Just one command with this syntax. If you need more command, you have to use heredoc as Vít said in this thread.

Re: does mc really require perl*?

Dne 11.9.2013 21:54, Bill Nottingham napsal(a): The problem with soft dependencies has always been the semantics and the workflow, not the implementation. So do we have the implementation? I am afraid not, since this "problem" is always used as an excuse why not implement it. But discussing w

mc alternative: Double Commander

Dne 22.9.2013 10:32, Martin Sourada napsal(a): Point me to such graphical filemanager. I fail to see even a decent gui alternative to mc under linux. You can try Double Commander if you like. http://doublecmd.sourceforge.net/ http://vondruch.fedorapeople.org/doublecmd/doublecmd.repo Vít -- de

Re: Need some help writing gitlab and gitlab-shell specs

Dne 19.9.2013 20:42, Axilleas Pipinellis napsal(a): I have asked in #fedora-infra what FHS they use with the git repos in fedorahosted and we concluded that the rails apps would go to /usr/share/ and git repos and satellites to /usr/lib/. Git repos in /usr/lib? That does not sound right. Lat

Re: Software management: Call for RFEs results!

Dne 16.10.2013 10:04, Jan Zelený napsal(a): On 15. 10. 2013 at 09:40:41, Matthew Miller wrote: On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 01:15:26PM +0200, Jan Zelený wrote: Not to be only negative here, take a look at the COPR initiative, I expect it will solve the problem you are talking about by offering exter

Re: Software management: Call for RFEs results!

Dne 17.10.2013 01:15, Kevin Kofler napsal(a): Vít Ondruch wrote: Sorry, this has nothing to do with FPC yet. RPM/YUM/DNF should first provide reasonable support. For example this issue [1] could take us closer as a first approximation. Vít [1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id

Re: Software management: Call for RFEs results!

Dne 17.10.2013 10:05, Jiri Moskovcak napsal(a): On 10/17/2013 09:15 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote: To be honest, the Kernel is the last package, which should be paraller installable, since you can run just one kernel at time. Yeah, admins will love that, when after updating the kernel the machine

Re: package, package2, package3 naming-with-version exploit

Dne 28.3.2013 09:29, juanmabc napsal(a): Just today i check updates, gnome-desktop3 was there, i didn't notice it but it is following the gtk3 naming scheme, and, what i think is happening more than desired, a lot of packages just kept going doing it. I see an overuse or exploit or package names

Re: Summary/Minutes from today's FESCo Meeting (2013-03-27)

Dne 27.3.2013 20:40, Tomas Mraz napsal(a): === #fedora-meeting: FESCO (2013-03-27) === Meeting started by t8m at 18:02:10 UTC. The full logs are available at http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2013-03-27/fesco.2013-03-2

Re: package, package2, package3 naming-with-version exploit

Dne 28.3.2013 12:09, Florian Festi napsal(a): This is done to make life easier for package maintainers. Sorry, you definitely not speak for me! This are just excuses. And I asked already several times to have some way to reliable support multiple version of packages without mangling their nam

Re: package, package2, package3 naming-with-version exploit

Dne 28.3.2013 13:30, Jan Zelený napsal(a): On 28. 3. 2013 at 12:59:44, Vít Ondruch wrote: Dne 28.3.2013 12:09, Florian Festi napsal(a): This is done to make life easier for package maintainers. Sorry, you definitely not speak for me! This are just excuses. And I asked already several times to

Re: package, package2, package3 naming-with-version exploit

Dne 28.3.2013 13:24, Matthias Clasen napsal(a): - Original Message - Dne 28.3.2013 12:09, Florian Festi napsal(a): This is done to make life easier for package maintainers. Sorry, you definitely not speak for me! This are just excuses. And I asked already several times to have some wa

Re: package, package2, package3 naming-with-version exploit

Dne 28.3.2013 14:06, Florian Festi napsal(a): On 03/28/2013 12:59 PM, Vít Ondruch wrote: Dne 28.3.2013 12:09, Florian Festi napsal(a): This is done to make life easier for package maintainers. Sorry, you definitely not speak for me! This are just excuses. And I asked already several times to

Re: package, package2, package3 naming-with-version exploit

Dne 28.3.2013 17:13, seth vidal napsal(a): On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 16:36:27 +0100 Vít Ondruch wrote: Ah, are we going to distribute this howtos instead of binary RPM's now? It is 4 easy steps, everybody can handle it. May be we could convert whole distribution into bunch of how-tos. It wou

Re: package, package2, package3 naming-with-version exploit

Dne 29.3.2013 02:09, Michael Scherer napsal(a): Le jeudi 28 mars 2013 à 17:45 +0100, Vít Ondruch a écrit : If this problem was put first time on the table in 2002, then there already passed 10 years of excuses. Or that in 10 years, we didn't found a proper solution that was sustainable.

Re: package, package2, package3 naming-with-version exploit

Dne 28.3.2013 19:43, James Antill napsal(a): Dear James, I just hear arguments why something not do. Could you please also come with variant why to do something? Think positive about the issue? You try to convince me that we are living in prefect world and RPM/YUM are doing already everything

Re: package, package2, package3 naming-with-version exploit

Dne 29.3.2013 13:28, Jan Zelený napsal(a): But the point I was making is that the technical solution of multiversion packaging has a potential to bring such a mess in spec files that they become unmaintanable and therefore the solution would be practically useless. Any example here? Could you s

Re: package, package2, package3 naming-with-version exploit

Dne 29.3.2013 14:42, Jan Zelený napsal(a): On 29. 3. 2013 at 10:29:01, Vít Ondruch wrote: Dne 29.3.2013 02:09, Michael Scherer napsal(a): Le jeudi 28 mars 2013 à 17:45 +0100, Vít Ondruch a écrit : If this problem was put first time on the table in 2002, then there already passed 10 years of

Re: package, package2, package3 naming-with-version exploit

Dne 29.3.2013 15:51, Jan Zelený napsal(a): On 29. 3. 2013 at 14:38:49, Vít Ondruch wrote: Dne 29.3.2013 13:28, Jan Zelený napsal(a): But the point I was making is that the technical solution of multiversion packaging has a potential to bring such a mess in spec files that they become

Re: any hope for logstash?

Dne 30.3.2013 03:31, gil napsal(a): Il 30/03/2013 01:16, Carl Byington ha scritto: I am working on packaging logstash http://www.logstash.net/ but the build procedure described here https://github.com/logstash/logstash/wiki/ Building-and-running-logstash-from-source seems to be incompatible

Re: package, package2, package3 naming-with-version exploit

Dne 29.3.2013 22:49, Nicolas Mailhot napsal(a): This is what I am taking about: http://www.devconf.cz/slides/mls-pkgmgmt2.pdf http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNwNF19oFqM The most interesting parts of the presentation IMHO are : 1. the acknowledgement that sometimes, you really need operators su

Re: rawhide report: 20130330 changes

Dne 30.3.2013 20:02, Kevin Fenzi napsal(a): There's a number of ruby ones. I'm not sure what to do with these. The abi is hard coded, so it would be easy to change and rebuild, but I have no idea if the packages work correctly with the new ruby. Ruby sig folks: Anyone working on these? [aeolus

Re: package, package2, package3 naming-with-version exploit

Dne 3.4.2013 12:26, Florian Festi napsal(a): On 03/29/2013 10:33 AM, Bohuslav Kabrda wrote: To me, these are very different aspects - should RPM/YUM be able to support multiple parallel versions without the naming hacks? Yes. Should Fedora as a distro support numbers of multiple versions of pa

Re: package, package2, package3 naming-with-version exploit

Dne 3.4.2013 14:12, Florian Festi napsal(a): On 04/03/2013 12:58 PM, Vít Ondruch wrote: The only thing you get wrong is that you take a look at Fedora packages and do some statistics. You don't see the packages which could be in Fedora if RPM/YUM would do better job. Just as an examp

Re: package, package2, package3 naming-with-version exploit

Dne 3.4.2013 15:59, Miloslav Trmač napsal(a): On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 3:22 PM, Vít Ondruch <mailto:vondr...@redhat.com>> wrote: Lets suppose we are in F14 timeframe and 2.3 are the newest Rails available and lets say we have in Fedora several Rails applications using Rail

Re: package, package2, package3 naming-with-version exploit

Dne 3.4.2013 18:11, Florian Festi napsal(a): On 04/03/2013 05:02 PM, Vít Ondruch wrote: Dne 3.4.2013 15:59, Miloslav Trmač napsal(a): On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 3:22 PM, Vít Ondruch Sorry, but the rpm developers are the wrong people to talk to when it comes to Fedora packaging policies. I am

Re: package, package2, package3 naming-with-version exploit

Dne 3.4.2013 18:15, Miloslav Trmač napsal(a): On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 5:02 PM, Vít Ondruch <mailto:vondr...@redhat.com>> wrote: Dne 3.4.2013 15:59, Miloslav Trmač napsal(a): On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 3:22 PM, Vít Ondruch mailto:vondr...@redhat.com>> wrote: Ok,

Re: package, package2, package3 naming-with-version exploit

Dne 4.4.2013 14:48, Florian Festi napsal(a): On 04/04/2013 01:55 PM, Vít Ondruch wrote: I am not asking RPM developers to change policy, I am asking RPM developers to lay out foundation. It does not make sense to change policy, if there are no tools to fulfill it. Well, Fedora demanding a set

Re: package, package2, package3 naming-with-version exploit

Dne 4.4.2013 06:47, James Antill napsal(a): On Wed, 2013-04-03 at 15:22 +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote: Ok, if we don't want to break anything, we have two options 1) Just introduce new package rails30 and new applications can depend on it 2) Move the rails package to Rails 3.0 and reintr

Re: package, package2, package3 naming-with-version exploit

Dne 4.4.2013 15:47, Miloslav Trmač napsal(a): On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 3:16 PM, Vít Ondruch <mailto:vondr...@redhat.com>> wrote: Dne 3.4.2013 18:15, Miloslav Trmač napsal(a): On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 5:02 PM, Vít Ondruch mailto:vondr...@redhat.com>> wrote: Dne

Re: package, package2, package3 naming-with-version exploit

Dne 4.4.2013 15:48, Florian Festi napsal(a): On 04/04/2013 03:42 PM, Vít Ondruch wrote: Although they might support, and Kernel would be first user, even for Kernel, there is used hack instead of systematic solution as far as I know. As long as Kernel will be treated specially in this regard

Re: package, package2, package3 naming-with-version exploit

Dne 4.4.2013 16:20, Miloslav Trmač napsal(a): esthetics. May be I misunderstood the thread, but wasn't this the main point since the beginning? To prevent the "naming-with-version" exploit as is still stated in the $SUBJECT? It might looks like the thread would be named like "how to instal

Re: package, package2, package3 naming-with-version exploit

Dne 4.4.2013 17:34, seth vidal napsal(a): On Thu, 04 Apr 2013 17:29:26 +0200 Vít Ondruch wrote: Dne 4.4.2013 16:20, Miloslav Trmač napsal(a): esthetics. May be I misunderstood the thread, but wasn't this the main point since the beginning? To prevent the "naming-with-version"

Re: package, package2, package3 naming-with-version exploit

Dne 4.4.2013 18:11, Mattias Ellert napsal(a): tor 2013-04-04 klockan 17:29 +0200 skrev Vít Ondruch: Dne 4.4.2013 16:20, Miloslav Trmač napsal(a): esthetics. May be I misunderstood the thread, but wasn't this the main point since the beginning? To prevent the "naming-with-version&q

Re: package, package2, package3 naming-with-version exploit

Dne 4.4.2013 18:23, Reindl Harald napsal(a): Am 04.04.2013 18:21, schrieb Vít Ondruch: Dne 4.4.2013 18:11, Mattias Ellert napsal(a): tor 2013-04-04 klockan 17:29 +0200 skrev Vít Ondruch: Dne 4.4.2013 16:20, Miloslav Trmač napsal(a): esthetics. May be I misunderstood the thread, but wasn&#

Re: Explicit versioning of library names [was Re: package, package2, package3 naming-with-version exploit]

Dne 4.4.2013 20:07, Toshio Kuratomi napsal(a): There is also an unwritten (I think it's unwritten. A quick search didn't find it in the guidelines) rule that in Fedora, the current version of the library carries the base name. Older libraries carry the version in the name. Interesting ... it

Re: package, package2, package3 naming-with-version exploit

Dne 4.4.2013 20:36, Colin Walters napsal(a): On Thu, 2013-04-04 at 21:29 +0300, Panu Matilainen wrote: From technical perspective, there's zero need to change how multiversion packages work. Its a widely used (at least both in rpm and dpkg worlds) and well-understood mechanism to slap extra q

Re: Explicit versioning of library names [was Re: package, package2, package3 naming-with-version exploit]

Dne 5.4.2013 22:03, Toshio Kuratomi napsal(a): On Fri, Apr 05, 2013 at 10:53:53AM +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote: Dne 4.4.2013 20:07, Toshio Kuratomi napsal(a): There is also an unwritten (I think it's unwritten. A quick search didn't find it in the guidelines) rule that in Fedora, t

Re: Explicit versioning of library names [was Re: package, package2, package3 naming-with-version exploit]

Dne 8.4.2013 17:05, Toshio Kuratomi napsal(a): On Mon, Apr 08, 2013 at 12:28:01PM +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote: Dne 5.4.2013 22:03, Toshio Kuratomi napsal(a): On Fri, Apr 05, 2013 at 10:53:53AM +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote: Dne 4.4.2013 20:07, Toshio Kuratomi napsal(a): There is also an unwritten (I

Fwd: [Fedora Update] [comment] wallaby-0.16.0-3.fc19

Why is it 7 days? It used to by 3 days in this period of release cycle, if I remember correctly. Was there some change? Vít Původní zpráva Předmět:[Fedora Update] [comment] wallaby-0.16.0-3.fc19 Datum: Tue, 09 Apr 2013 22:04:11 + Od: upda...@fedoraproject.org

Re: Keeping old versions of packages

Dne 9.4.2013 18:14, Simo Sorce napsal(a): On Tue, 2013-04-09 at 17:16 +0200, Hans de Goede wrote: Hi, Am 09.04.2013 14:27, schrieb Matthew Miller: On Tue, Apr 09, 2013 at 10:10:26AM +0100, Richard Hughes wrote: I'm wondering what the interest would be in keeping packages referenced in metadat

Re: [Fedora Update] [comment] wallaby-0.16.0-3.fc19

Dne 10.4.2013 18:03, Kevin Fenzi napsal(a): On Wed, 10 Apr 2013 12:44:22 +0200 Vít Ondruch wrote: Why is it 7 days? It used to by 3 days in this period of release cycle, if I remember correctly. Was there some change? Nope. Just a mistake. ;) The pre-beta status wasn't updated every

Re: Broken dependencies: rubygem-pam

Hi Bryan, If you are OK with: * making the .spef file F19+ compatible only * dropping the ruby-pam sub-package I can fix the .spec file for you. Please let me know. Vít Dne 15.4.2013 13:54, Bryan Kearney napsal(a): I am not sure how to fix this. The current spec file in master and f19 h

Re: Trimming (or obsoleting) %changelog?

Dne 15.4.2013 18:03, Richard Shaw napsal(a): On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 11:00 AM, Toshio Kuratomi > wrote: If I remember, I tend to trim off changelog entries that are more than two years old once a year for packages that I own. Two years is twice the len

Re: Broken dependencies: rubygem-pam

Dne 17.4.2013 01:30, Adam Williamson napsal(a): On 15/04/13 05:30 AM, Josef Stribny wrote: Hi, change ruby(abi) to Requires: ruby(release) as in guidelines [1] "Each Ruby package must indicate it depends on a Ruby interpreter. Use ruby(release) virtual requirement to achieve that:" This is

Re: Broken dependencies: rubygem-pam

Dear Bryan, If you think you fixed your package by changing ruby(abi) to ruby(release) then you don't. Quick look on the RPMs will reveal: $ rpm -qp -l http://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//packages/rubygem-pam/1.5.4/15.fc19/x86_64/rubygem-pam-1.5.4-15.fc19.x86_64.rpm /builddir/.gem/ruby/cache/

Koji - Errno::ECONNREFUSED: Connection refused - getaddrinfo

Hi, Since not a long ago, I cannot build Ruby for Rawhide, while it works just fine for F19. I observe following 4 errors in its test suite: 7) Error: test_proxy_eh_ENV_no_proxy(TestNetHTTP): Errno::ECONNREFUSED: Connection refused - getaddrinfo /builddir/build/BUILD/ruby-2.0.0-p0/lib/u

Re: Koji - Errno::ECONNREFUSED: Connection refused - getaddrinfo

Dne 23.4.2013 14:33, Vít Ondruch napsal(a): Hi, Since not a long ago, I cannot build Ruby for Rawhide, while it works just fine for F19. I observe following 4 errors in its test suite: 7) Error: test_proxy_eh_ENV_no_proxy(TestNetHTTP): Errno::ECONNREFUSED: Connection refused - getaddrinfo

Re: Koji - Errno::ECONNREFUSED: Connection refused - getaddrinfo

Dne 24.4.2013 13:03, Harald Hoyer napsal(a): On 04/24/2013 10:27 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote: Dne 23.4.2013 14:33, Vít Ondruch napsal(a): Hi, Since not a long ago, I cannot build Ruby for Rawhide, while it works just fine for F19. I observe following 4 errors in its test suite: 7) Error

Re: Mock - Errno::ECONNREFUSED: Connection refused - getaddrinfo

Dne 24.4.2013 13:11, Vít Ondruch napsal(a): Dne 24.4.2013 13:03, Harald Hoyer napsal(a): On 04/24/2013 10:27 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote: Dne 23.4.2013 14:33, Vít Ondruch napsal(a): Hi, Since not a long ago, I cannot build Ruby for Rawhide, while it works just fine for F19. I observe following 4

Re: Koji - Errno::ECONNREFUSED: Connection refused - getaddrinfo

Dne 24.4.2013 13:35, Richard W.M. Jones napsal(a): On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 10:27:49AM +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote: Seems to be due to systemd-202: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=956035 It's a bug in glibc actually: http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15339 I found

Re: F-19 Branched report: 20130425 changes

Dne 25.4.2013 23:03, Tom Callaway napsal(a): I've done all I can here, for the moment. Here are my notes on the broken deps: [aeolus-conductor] aeolus-conductor-0.10.6-2.fc19.noarch requires ruby(abi) = 0:1.9.1 This seems to be dead: https://lists.fedorahosted.org/pipermail/aeolus-de

Re: F19 DVD over size - what to drop?

Dne 1.5.2013 22:21, Bill Nottingham napsal(a): Dan Mashal (dan.mas...@gmail.com) said: I think we should look at package dependencies. It seems that lots of unnecessary packages are being pulled when composing media. Here's everything new in the F19 DVD, sorted by size. I've dropped java-1.8.0-

New build should not always obsolete previous one in Bodhi

Dne 3.5.2013 00:22, Adam Williamson napsal(a): On Mon, 2013-04-29 at 15:01 +0100, Sérgio Basto wrote: On Sáb, 2013-04-27 at 15:59 +0200, Reindl Harald wrote: this one is no longer relevant and if there would be a karma-option in koji i would have given as i rolled out 3.8.8-102.fc17.x86_64 in p

FPC elections

Dne 14.5.2013 20:46, Josh Boyer napsal(a): Heck the community did not have the faintest idea which tickets they even worked ( or did any work at all ) on until I literally request they adopted the fesco model so we atleast could get a faint idea what was going to be discussed on those meeting...

Re: FPC elections

Dne 16.5.2013 15:29, Josh Boyer napsal(a): Anyway working with them does not make the process going any faster since to me the FPC and it's concept is the bottleneck vs the open way of ack/nack/patch approach where you would have more participants and eyes on the guidelines changes including by t

Re: FPC elections

Dne 16.5.2013 18:40, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" napsal(a): On 05/16/2013 03:09 PM, Vít Ondruch wrote: I think that JBG built on my proposal. I am personally ambivalent to disabling FPC. I can imagine that some process as "proposed" by JBG would work, but I am afraid it i

"Size change" in rawhide report

Dne 22.5.2013 14:20, Fedora Rawhide Report napsal(a): ruby-2.0.0.195-8.fc20 - * Fri May 17 2013 Vít Ondruch - 2.0.0.195-8 - Update to Ruby 2.0.0-p195 (rhbz#917374). - Fix object taint bypassing in DL and Fiddle (CVE-2013-2065). - Fix build against OpenSSL with enabled ECC

Re: "Size change" in rawhide report

Dne 22.5.2013 15:52, Kevin Fenzi napsal(a): On Wed, 22 May 2013 14:29:00 +0200 Vít Ondruch wrote: Dne 22.5.2013 14:20, Fedora Rawhide Report napsal(a): ruby-2.0.0.195-8.fc20 - * Fri May 17 2013 Vít Ondruch - 2.0.0.195-8 - Update to Ruby 2.0.0-p195 (rhbz#917374). - Fix

Re: Software Management call for RFEs

Dne 23.5.2013 15:30, Stijn Hoop napsal(a): On Thu, 23 May 2013 14:02:34 +0200 Jan Zelený wrote: On 23. 5. 2013 at 10:53:10, Stijn Hoop wrote: I would like better integration with domain-specific package managers. By which I mean npm (for node.js), gem (for ruby), pip (for python), cpan (for pe

Re: Software Management call for RFEs

Dne 23.5.2013 16:29, Miloslav Trmač napsal(a): On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 4:23 PM, Vít Ondruch <mailto:vondr...@redhat.com>> wrote: *It is not possible to convert the packages technically nor philosophically* You might think million times that the sentence is not truth, but

Re: Daily package ownership changes?

Dne 29.5.2013 04:12, Adam Williamson napsal(a): We already in fact do an 'upgradepath' check in AutoQA. Unfortunately, it doesn't work for Rawhide, so it is a bit pointless :/ Vít -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: Fedora 20 new planning process and schedules

Dne 3.6.2013 19:04, Dan Mashal napsal(a): What is a system wide change vs a self contained change vs a new change? That is good question. I was always against distinguishing between these two, but For example, if there will be new release of Ruby, I am going to propose them as a "self

Architecture specific header files

Hi, Is there some common practice, where to place architecture specific header files? From output of the following command, I can't see any such place. $ `gcc -print-prog-name=cc1` -v ignoring nonexistent directory "/usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-redhat-linux/4.8.1/include-fixed" ignoring nonexistent

Re: Architecture specific header files

Dne 25.6.2013 22:37, Björn Persson napsal(a): Petr Pisar wrote: On 2013-06-25, Vít Ondruch wrote: Is there some common practice, where to place architecture specific header files? From output of the following command, I can't see any such place. I dont't think so. SDL moves ar

Re: Architecture specific header files

Dne 25.6.2013 15:41, Vít Ondruch napsal(a): Hi, Is there some common practice, where to place architecture specific header files? From output of the following command, I can't see any such place. $ `gcc -print-prog-name=cc1` -v ignoring nonexistent directory "/usr/lib/gcc/x86

Re: Architecture specific header files

Dne 28.6.2013 15:04, Jakub Jelinek napsal(a): On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 02:58:12PM +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote: Dne 25.6.2013 15:41, Vít Ondruch napsal(a): Is there some common practice, where to place architecture specific header files? From output of the following command, I can't see any

How noarch FFI wrapper package can dependes on .so file

Hi, I recently did review or rubygem-gssapi [1], which is FFI wrapper above libgssapi_krb5.so.2. Now, we'd like to specify dependency directly on this library, but since rubygem-gssapi is noarch, it seems there is no way how to specify this dependency better then "Requires: krb5-libs", unles

Re: Architecture specific header files

Dne 28.6.2013 15:04, Jakub Jelinek napsal(a): On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 02:58:12PM +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote: Dne 25.6.2013 15:41, Vít Ondruch napsal(a): Is there some common practice, where to place architecture specific header files? From output of the following command, I can't see any

Re: [Owner-change] Fedora packages ownership change

Dne 8.7.2013 12:00, nob...@fedoraproject.org napsal(a): ruby-mysql [devel] was orphaned by orion A Ruby interface to MySQL https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/acls/name/ruby-mysql Was this intentional? There is no replacement to this package in Fedora yet, nor it was correctly d

Re: [Owner-change] Fedora packages ownership change

Dne 9.7.2013 17:52, Orion Poplawski napsal(a): On 07/09/2013 12:16 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote: Dne 8.7.2013 12:00, nob...@fedoraproject.org napsal(a): ruby-mysql [devel] was orphaned by orion A Ruby interface to MySQL https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/acls/name/ruby-mysql Was this

Re: systemd 230 change - KillUserProcesses defaults to yes

Dne 31.5.2016 v 21:20 DJ Delorie napsal(a): > Lennart Poettering writes: >> Again, as mentioned before: key here is that permitting user processes >> to stick around after all sessions of the user ended needs to be a >> privilieged concept. It should not be allowed for user code to stick >> arou

Re: systemd 230 change - KillUserProcesses defaults to yes

Dne 1.6.2016 v 18:18 Ben Rosser napsal(a): > > > On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 10:58 AM, Matthias Clasen > wrote: > > On Wed, 2016-06-01 at 09:59 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote: > > > > > This paints a very specific premise of what a "logout" is, and I'm > > not

Re: Retired solr, parquet, parquet-format

chm ... should I read it as I should retire rubygem-rsolr as well? Nothing depends on it in Fedora I guess. Vít Dne 2.6.2016 v 16:05 gil napsal(a): > hi > > i retired solr and parquet depend on hadoop that was retired > > parquet-format was used only by parquet > > regards > > .g > -- > devel

Re: Hacks for multilib unclean C headers

I pursued this once before: https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/312 but failed to propose the draft. But still, it would be much better if this can be resolved on gcc side: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=979403 Vít Dne 7.6.2016 v 17:30 Pavel Raiskup napsal(a): > Just wanted to

Unannounced soname bump - userspace-rcu

It seems there was unannounced soname bump in userspace-rcu. Not sure what everything needs to get rebuild, but it seems that lttng-ust at minimum (and there is already rhbz#1348895). Vít -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.f

Re: Fedora development of Snap packages

Dne 14.6.2016 v 21:06 Eric Griffith napsal(a): > > I'm testing it out for Phoronix. The copr works correctly, it installs > fine. Running snapper works fine, once you figure out what the correct > instructions should be (snapcraft.io 's > instructions are slightly wrong). > >

Re: Unannounced soname bump - userspace-rcu

Dne 22.6.2016 v 16:21 Richard W.M. Jones napsal(a): > On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 03:03:09PM +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote: >> It seems there was unannounced soname bump in userspace-rcu. Not sure >> what everything needs to get rebuild, but it seems that lttng-ust at >> minimum

Re: spec.vim plugin

You might want to talk about this plugin with Igor (in CC), who is maintainer of the spec.vim. He had similar intentions (rewrite) as far as I know ... Vít Dne 19.6.2016 v 21:12 Filip Szymański napsal(a): > Hi, > > For some time now I have small problems with the `spec.vim` plugin > on f24 (es

Re: Fedora development of Snap packages

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 Dne 22.6.2016 v 19:19 Jiri Eischmann napsal(a): > Michael Catanzaro píše v St 22. 06. 2016 v 10:22 -0500: >> On Wed, 2016-06-22 at 15:43 +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote: >>> Eric, >>> >>> So how about similar article

Re: Injecting perl-devel and perl-generators build-requires

I applaud it as well. Thx for doing this. Vít Dne 23.6.2016 v 21:50 Tim Orling napsal(a): > Thank you for doing all this work, Petr. I, for one, really appreciate > it. I hope others feel the same (whether or not they agree with the > Built Root change itself). > > > Cheers. > > --Tim > > On T

Re: Fedora rawhide compose report: 20160623.n.0 changes

This doesn't sound right. What is wrong with Rawhide composes? Vít Dne 26.6.2016 v 13:30 Fedora Rawhide Report napsal(a): > OLD: Fedora-Rawhide-20160623.n.0 > NEW: Fedora-Rawhide-20160623.n.0 > > = SUMMARY = > Added images:0 > Dropped images: 0 > Added packages: 0 > D

Re: Fedora rawhide compose report: 20160623.n.0 changes

Dne 27.6.2016 v 15:46 Kevin Fenzi napsal(a): > On Mon, 27 Jun 2016 13:11:38 +0200 > Vít Ondruch wrote: > >> This doesn't sound right. What is wrong with Rawhide composes? > It was a config issue with the way composes were named. > > I noticed it this weeken

Re: Too fast karma on Bodhi updates

Dne 11.7.2016 v 11:00 Christian Dersch napsal(a): > > On 07/11/2016 10:49 AM, Kamil Paral wrote: >>> Any kind of feedback after package gets into updates repository should >>> be denied, I can't think of a case where package moves to updates >>> repository and bodhi still allows to add comments/k

Re: Requiring package test instructions

Dne 12.7.2016 v 18:49 Adam Williamson napsal(a): > > The idea is this: there could be a requirement for all packages to > provide at least *some* kind of 'how to test' information. If the package should be tested by human, I'd expect that there will be some additional value, i.e. the human can s

jQuery

Hi, Is there chance that somebody more familiar with JS than me would update jQuery in Fedora? It would be nice to have jQuery 3.x as well. Or should I do the update myself? I am asking since I need to update rubygem-jquery-rails, which requires the recent versions of jQuery (and it will require

Re: jQuery

Dne 21.7.2016 v 15:12 Stephen Gallagher napsal(a): > On 07/21/2016 09:02 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote: >> Hi, >> >> Is there chance that somebody more familiar with JS than me would update >> jQuery in Fedora? It would be nice to have jQuery 3.x as well. Or should >> I

Re: Improvements of Fedora Sponsorship process

Dne 5.8.2016 v 09:32 Miroslav Suchý napsal(a): > I had the talk [1] about Fedora Sponsorship process at Flock. And we > had very interesting follow-up discussion. > > We come up with several improvements, which should be easy to > implement and may improve the process a lot. I am posting it here

Re: review swaps

Dne 23.8.2016 v 20:11 Björn Esser napsal(a): > Thanks you very much for the reviews! ^^ > > We need a compat-pkg for rubygem-listen, I'm afraid… :( Why? Vít > > > Am 23.08.2016 um 19:45 schrieb gil: >> hi >> >> damm i dont know what happen! >> >> $ fedora-review -b 1368851 --plugins Ruby

Re: F24, small backward steps

Dne 9.9.2016 v 21:53 Roger Wells napsal(a): > Just a couple of smallish things after upgrading (via dnf) from F23 to > F24 a couple of months ago: > > > 2. fingerprint identification: > > The laptop has a fingerprint reader and it works fine. However > I prefer not to use it. The user se

Re: How to obsolete a subpackage?

Dne 14.9.2016 v 16:32 Florian Weimer napsal(a): > On 09/14/2016 04:28 PM, David Howells wrote: >> I need to obsolete one of the arch subpackages in the cross-binutils >> rpm (and >> also in the cross-gcc rpm) because binutils no longer supports that arch >> (sh64). >> >> Just marking the appropri

<    1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >