[perl-Data-AMF/f15] Initial commit

Summary of changes: f5ee887... Initial commit (*) (*) This commit already existed in another branch; no separate mail sent -- Fedora Extras Perl SIG http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl perl-devel mailing list perl-de...@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mail

[perl-Data-AMF/f16] Initial commit

Summary of changes: f5ee887... Initial commit (*) (*) This commit already existed in another branch; no separate mail sent -- Fedora Extras Perl SIG http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl perl-devel mailing list perl-de...@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mail

[perl-Data-AMF/f17] Initial commit

Summary of changes: f5ee887... Initial commit (*) (*) This commit already existed in another branch; no separate mail sent -- Fedora Extras Perl SIG http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl perl-devel mailing list perl-de...@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mail

private-shared-object-provides in perl module

Trying to package a simple perl-only module from CPAN I get message above when running rpmlint on the installed package. I have %{?standard_perl_filter} according to the template. I have noted that quite a number of existing perl modules (~10 on my machine) have the same rpmlint warning. Can

Re: private-shared-object-provides in perl module

On 02/18/2012 03:35 PM, Paul Howarth wrote: On Sat, 18 Feb 2012 15:06:49 +0100 Alec Leamas wrote: Trying to package a simple perl-only module from CPAN I get message above when running rpmlint on the installed package. I have %{?standard_perl_filter} according to the template. I have noted

Bundling?!

I've tried to package Adobe Source Libraries, (BZ:790628). Once again, I'm running into bundling issues.. The situation is basically that ASL build system expects a boost source tree to be available. This is not just to include and link, it's for the complete build process. I've dealt with it b

Re: Bundling?!

Thanks all for a remarkable set of advice including what not to do (Petr M), a hint about what to do (Ralf E) and another hint how it could be done (Aleksandra B). I have been able to update the packaging to only bundle the boost tools subdirectory. I presume that this should make everyone h

Re: Help with Mock error

On 03/13/2012 07:21 AM, Amit Saha wrote: Hello: I am in the process of building my first package [1], and have got most of it sorted. 'rpmbuild -ba' executes successfully with the current SPEC file[3]. However, the SRPM [2] fails in Mock with the error: RPM build errors: File not found

Re: Help with Mock error

On 03/13/2012 08:43 AM, Alec Leamas wrote: On 03/13/2012 07:21 AM, Amit Saha wrote: Hello: I am in the process of building my first package [1], and have got most of it sorted. 'rpmbuild -ba' executes successfully with the current SPEC file[3]. However, the SRPM [2] fails in Moc

Re: Help with Mock error

On 03/13/2012 08:58 AM, Amit Saha wrote: Hello: On 03/13/2012 06:50 PM, Alec Leamas wrote: On 03/13/2012 08:43 AM, Alec Leamas wrote: On 03/13/2012 07:21 AM, Amit Saha wrote: Hello: I am in the process of building my first package [1], and have got most of it sorted. 'rpmbuild -ba'

Re: Help with Mock error

On 03/13/2012 10:10 AM, Amit Saha wrote: On 03/13/2012 07:48 PM, Alec Leamas wrote: On 03/13/2012 08:58 AM, Amit Saha wrote: Hello: On 03/13/2012 06:50 PM, Alec Leamas wrote: On 03/13/2012 08:43 AM, Alec Leamas wrote: On 03/13/2012 07:21 AM, Amit Saha wrote: Hello: I am in the process of

Re: Help with Mock error

On 03/13/2012 11:55 AM, Amit Saha wrote: On 03/13/2012 09:17 PM, Alec Leamas wrote: On 03/13/2012 10:10 AM, Amit Saha wrote: On 03/13/2012 07:48 PM, Alec Leamas wrote: On 03/13/2012 08:58 AM, Amit Saha wrote: Hello: On 03/13/2012 06:50 PM, Alec Leamas wrote: On 03/13/2012 08:43 AM, Alec

Re: /usr/share/applications weird error on koji

On 03/19/2012 12:50 PM, Nikos Roussos wrote: Hi, I'm trying to build a package. It's an update on SparkleShare package. I build it locally with mock and everything seems ok. Package is built successfully. But when I try to build it

Re: /usr/share/applications weird error on koji

On 03/19/2012 02:32 PM, Nikos Roussos wrote: On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 2:09 PM, Alec Leamas <mailto:leamas.a...@gmail.com>> wrote: On 03/19/2012 12:50 PM, Nikos Roussos wrote: Hi, I'm trying to build a package. It's an update on SparkleShare <https://a

Re: [Fedora-packaging] Is it time to allow Chromium in Fedora?

On 12/08/15 17:14, Matthew Miller wrote: It's important to note that "popularity" is not the sole reason for exceptions for Firefox. Overall, everyone should review the existing discussion in the guidelines about bundling exceptions and consider how this might fit in (possibly including revision

Re: Sponsors - who does (not) work on FE-NEEDSPONSOR tickets

On 15/08/15 11:21, Christopher Meng wrote: And some people contributed a lot in the past, after this result will you request revoking their sponsorship and wipe them out? My thought is some of these above can be dropped since they indeed no longer work in Fedora Project, leaving the privilege to

Re: Packaging Icinga 2 requiring SELinux assistance

On 23/09/15 13:16, Petr Lautrbach wrote: On 09/22/2015 08:46 PM, Shawn Starr wrote: However in long terms it's better to incorporate a package policy to the system policy. You can either file a bug against selinux-policy or try to contribute yourself using this [2] howto. That howto is some

Re: Proposal to reduce anti-bundling requirements

On 30/09/15 14:35, Stephen Gallagher wrote: Just to circle around here (in case people don't read my reply to the FESCo meeting agenda), I'm making the following revised proposal[1] to FESCo which may or may not be discussed at today's meeting (given that it was submitted late): FWIW, I also fi

Re: fedora-review: 'Illegal return' warnings

On 2014-10-04 20:12, Antonio Trande wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi all. These warnings appear during a package review; apparently, fedora-review command completes all its tasks. WARNING: Illegal return from /usr/share/fedora-review/scripts/generic-excludearch.sh, code

Re: fedora-review: 'Illegal return' warnings

On 2014-10-06 15:16, Florian Weimer wrote: On 10/05/2014 05:15 PM, Florian Weimer wrote: On 10/04/2014 10:18 PM, Alec Leamas wrote: Hm seems that recent bash patch to fix the shellshock problem introduces this. Fedora-review relies on exported shell functions (export -f) and the bash fix

Re: python distutils on Fedora 20

On 2014-10-26 13:35, Brad Bell wrote: I have a python setup.py script that works on Fedora 19 and not Fedora 20. I have tried posting a question about it to python-devel; see https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/python-devel/2014-October/000639.html but have not gotten any response. Woul

Re: python distutils on Fedora 20

On 28/10/14 13:43, Brad Bell wrote: Thanks Alec: I was using the executable g++ which was installed by the gcc-c++ package, so the gcc-c++ package was installed on the Fedora 20 system. Your comment about locate cc1plus was a big help. If I add /usr/libexec/gcc/x86_64-redhat-linux/4.8.2 to

Q: Splitting existing pkg into subpackages?!

Hi all! Feeling dumb (again...) I have a package which I now need to split into subpackages. Also, I want the original package to just be an empty one pulling in all the new subpackages, giving a smooth upgrade path (installing the base package installs everything, as it used to be). My pro

Re: Q: Splitting existing pkg into subpackages?!

On 30/10/14 10:41, Sergio Pascual wrote: Hello 2014-10-30 10:32 GMT+01:00 Alec Leamas mailto:leamas.a...@gmail.com>>: Hi all! Feeling dumb (again...) I have a package which I now need to split into subpackages. [cut] Does this help? http://fedoraproject.or

Re: Q: Splitting existing pkg into subpackages?!

On 30/10/14 10:58, Sergio Pascual wrote: 2014-10-30 10:50 GMT+01:00 Alec Leamas mailto:leamas.a...@gmail.com>>: On 30/10/14 10:41, Sergio Pascual wrote: Hello 2014-10-30 10:32 GMT+01:00 Alec Leamas mailto:leamas.a...@gmail.com> <mailto:leamas.a.

fedora-review karma.

Dear list, We need some urgent karma for fedora-review. The reason is that an upcoming mock release breaks it unless this update is pushed [1]. So, karma would be very much appreciated for the current updates [2] and [3] so we can resolve this mess. If you need some testing done in return it

Re: fedora-review karma.

On 04/05/15 18:55, Reindl Harald wrote: Am 04.05.2015 um 18:52 schrieb Alec Leamas: Dear list, We need some urgent karma for fedora-review. The reason is that an upcoming mock release breaks it unless this update is pushed [1]. So, karma would be very much appreciated for the current

Re: Error with scratch build using fedora-create-review

On 05/05/15 20:56, Richard Shaw wrote: That last couple of times I've used fedora-create-review I've gotten an error: $ fedora-create-review --user hobbes1...@gmail.com rpmbuild/flmsg/SPECS/flmsg.spec rpmbuild/flmsg/SRPMS/flmsg-2.0.10-1.fc21.src.rpm Starting scratch

Re: Naming packages when upstream uses dashes in the release version

On 06/05/15 10:21, Alexander Ploumistos wrote: So, what would the rpm be named? foo-3.80.1-1.rpm or foo-3.80-1-1.rpm? Is the latter a possibility? No. The NVR is by definition foo-version-release, a thing like foo-3.80-1-1.rpm is basically "illegal syntax". Dashes in the name are OK since o

Re: Naming packages when upstream uses dashes in the release version

On 06/05/15 10:51, Alexander Ploumistos wrote: So basically, one could end up using foo-3.80-1.1.20150506.rpm, No. The release part (here 1.1.2015050) should not contain any part of the upstream release number. The same goes for foo-3.80-1_1.rpm. I think the reasonable options are foo-3.80_1

Re: Naming packages when upstream uses dashes in the release version

On 06/05/15 11:23, Alexander Ploumistos wrote: I still think someone with more experience than me should add something to the wiki, https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Separators does not list such an exception (or if it does, I don't get it). I think you are right. Also

Re: Submitting bodhi updates is very slow at the moment

On 12/05/15 13:36, Sérgio Basto wrote: On Ter, 2015-05-12 at 09:39 +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: This update is currently being pushed to the Fedora 22 testing updates repository. But isn't pushed yet (12 hours later !?) . 12 hours is nothing these days, infra seem to have problems. Curr

Re: Crashes Plenty after latest update

On 03/29/2012 02:56 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: On Thu, 2012-03-29 at 18:43 +1100, droid...@gmail.com wrote: Hello: I 'yum update' (d) a fresh F16 KDE installation this morning. And programs have been crashing. For example, this is a mplayer crash: (gdb) run Starting program: /usr/bin/mplayer

Re: package with binaries only in /usr/sbin: rpmlint "no binaries" error, empty debuginfo

On 03/30/2012 09:28 AM, Eric Smith wrote: I'm working on packaging HP's LTFS filesystem (which uses fuse), and it has binaries only in /usr/sbin. rpmlint complains that there are no binaries, and the debuginfo package is empty. [cut] hpltfs.x86_64: E: no-binary hpltfs.x86_64: E: incorrect-f

Git post-release version-release

My problem is about possible ways to form the version-release fields for a git post-release.. My example involves a version like 1.1.0 and a git release like 20120329git1234567 Reading [1], all examples of post-release updates are on the form foo-1.1.0-1.20120328git1234567.fc16. Obviously, thi

Re: help updating sheepdog in F17

On 04/04/2012 01:36 PM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: On Wed, Apr 04, 2012 at 12:23:17PM +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote: On Wed, 04 Apr 2012 09:23:16 +0200, FMDN (Fabio) wrote: Hi all, with one of the latest updates of corosync, we had to break some API/ABI. All packages have been rebuilt and they

Re: R: Re: Primary Architectures: Another Proposal (RFC)

On 04/10/2012 07:01 PM, pinto.e...@gmail.com wrote: Messaggio originale Da: Horst H. von Brand Inviato: 10/04/2012, 16:31 A: Development discussions related to Fedora; Kevin Kofler Oggetto: Re: Primary Architectures: Another Proposal (RFC) 12, and counting... time for post-graduate cou

Re: R: Re: Primary Architectures: Another Proposal (RFC)

On 04/10/2012 07:17 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote: On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 19:10:46 +0200 Alec Leamas wrote: I've moderated them... sorry it took me a few minutes to notice. ;) kevin Hey, no need to apologize, it was actually fixed in a couple of minutes. Just a break in the everyday routines. Tak

Private-libraries in /usr/lib* - invalid soname.

Still a newbie I have repeatedly been running into apps which stores private, unversioned libraries into /usr/lib*. The usual symptom is 'invalid-soname' errors rpmlint errors. One example is [3] The proper way is to store these libs outside of ld.so's search path (in which case rpmlint can be

Re: Private-libraries in /usr/lib* - invalid soname.

On 04/20/2012 04:08 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote: Alec Leamas wrote: Still a newbie I have repeatedly been running into apps which stores private, unversioned libraries into /usr/lib*. The usual symptom is 'invalid-soname' errors rpmlint errors. There's no requirement that our p

Re: Private-libraries in /usr/lib* - invalid soname.

On 04/20/2012 05:09 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 04:32:59PM +0200, Alec Leamas wrote: On 04/20/2012 04:08 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote: As far as I know, invalid-soname does not match any requirement in our packaging guidelines. To my understanding, this is not really clear

Re: Private-libraries in /usr/lib* - invalid soname.

On 04/20/2012 06:16 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 05:59:44PM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote: Toshio Kuratomi wrote: * Private unversiond libs in %{_libdir}. -- I would consider this a blocker unless shown that they have to be there (and I would patch the build scripts to fix th

Re: Private-libraries in /usr/lib* - invalid soname.

On 04/23/2012 03:11 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: On Fri, 2012-04-20 at 17:20 +0200, Alec Leamas wrote: Thanks again. Following this advice when packaging makes perfect sense to me. Still, when reviewing, my question is how hard I should push it. If I understand Kevin correct I shouldn't pu

Re: Proposal for revitalizing the sponsorship process for packaging

On 04/26/2012 01:18 PM, Nelson Marques wrote: No dia 26 de Abril de 2012 01:08, Stephen Gallagher escreveu: On Wed, 2012-04-25 at 22:43 +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote: Why not just drop the sponsorship process and just raise the barrier of entry for the packaging process instead? Like

Re: Proposal for revitalizing the sponsorship process for packaging

On 04/26/2012 02:30 PM, Jon Ciesla wrote: On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 6:59 AM, Alec Leamas wrote: On 04/26/2012 01:18 PM, Nelson Marques wrote: No dia 26 de Abril de 2012 01:08, Stephen Gallagher escreveu: On Wed, 2012-04-25 at 22:43 +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote: Why not

Re: Proposal for revitalizing the sponsorship process for packaging

On 04/26/2012 03:02 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote: On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 13:59:30 +0200, AL (Alec) wrote: [cut] What I'm talking about is to tell these great people that there are two ways to get their app packaged. One way is to become a packager, and so far this discussion is about that path,. Obv

Re: Proposal for revitalizing the sponsorship process for packaging

On 04/26/2012 04:58 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote: On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 15:17:09 +0200, AL (Alec) wrote: [cut] And for the second part, that somebody has "a good connection with upstream", I'm not sure how that will help, *if* not even one packager is available. Worse if the single person with intere

Fwd: Re: Proposal for revitalizing the sponsorship process for packaging (w correct link)

I got the trailing link wrong, here is same message with link OK (no punctuation ) On 04/26/2012 04:58 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote: On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 15:17:09 +0200, AL (Alec) wrote: [cut] And for the second part, that somebody has "a good connection with upstream", I'm not sure how that w

Re: Proposal for revitalizing the sponsorship process for packaging

On 04/26/2012 05:49 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote: On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 17:32:17 +0200, AL (Alec) wrote: OT? The question here isn't really what submitters do or don't, isn't it what we could do to improve the process?. The point is that not all submitters are collaborative, and others don't seek

Re: Private-libraries in /usr/lib* - invalid soname.

On 04/27/2012 11:32 AM, Michael Schwendt wrote: On Mon, 23 Apr 2012 16:01:16 +0200, AL (Alec) wrote: You I am am a newbie, and although the overall wiki rule is "Be Bold" this is not really the place for me to be that IMHO. So, I have prepared a draft in https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Talk:Commo

Re: Proposal for revitalizing the sponsorship process for packaging

On 05/02/2012 05:34 AM, Horst H. von Brand wrote: Vít Ondruch wrote: Dne 26.4.2012 18:13, Alec Leamas napsal(a): On 04/26/2012 05:49 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote: On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 17:32:17 +0200, AL (Alec) wrote: [...] I am thinking about some "dumping" repository, where pe

Need review advice

This is about BZ 817268, python-faces. The faces library is bundled in openerp-server, and the request is about unbundling this library. Faces is basically two python packages and a binary application. The upstream is dead. The library cannot be used or even installed in current upstream stat

Re: Packaging Guidelines - creating tarball from VCS with script

On 05/14/2012 10:46 PM, Thomas Moschny wrote: 2012/5/14 Toshio Kuratomi: Automating of the package's checksum won't work for many VCS's . git, for instance, does not preserve timestamps. So the tarball created from a git snapshot will have a different checksum for each checkout. While files'

Re: Packaging Guidelines - creating tarball from VCS with script

On 05/15/2012 10:19 AM, Tomas Radej wrote: On Mon, 14 May 2012 16:31:08 +0200 Remi Collet wrote: Le 14/05/2012 16:22, Toshio Kuratomi a écrit : What do you think? I personally prefer to have the checkout instructions in comments. +1 Except for some very complex scripts for which it make s

Re: FSF address fix and timestamps

On 06/20/2012 06:59 PM, Sergio Belkin wrote: Hi Fedora community, I know that I can fix the new address of sources files with sed (http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging_tricks#Wrong_FSF_address). I think that timestamp should not be preserved because it's a change, a really small change, but

Fwd: Filtering question

I raised this issue on rpmfusion-devel. However, I think it's general enough to seek advice also here on fedora-devel. since it's really about how to understand the filtering guidelines. Hi! I'm reviewing a package 2300 which at a glance seems to need filtering: it both Requires: and Provides

Re: Fwd: Filtering question

On 06/21/2012 04:04 PM, Paul Howarth wrote: On 06/21/2012 10:18 AM, Alec Leamas wrote: I raised this issue on rpmfusion-devel. However, I think it's general enough to seek advice also here on fedora-devel. since it's really about how to understand the filtering guidelines. Hi! I

Re: Fwd: Filtering question

On 06/21/2012 05:16 PM, Paul Howarth wrote: On 06/21/2012 03:53 PM, Alec Leamas wrote: On 06/21/2012 04:04 PM, Paul Howarth wrote: [cut] The filtering page on the wiki is rather out of date as it pre-dates rpm 4.9 (F-15 onwards), which includes a native filtering mechanism and doesn't re

Q: Conflicting -devel packages

This is about a package BZ #787713. It's standard, C++ library with a base and -devel package. The devel package contains both arch-dependent stuff (*.so) and noarch headers. Now, Ralf Corsepius raised the issue that package-devel.i386 and package-devel.x86_64 cant be installed in paralle

Re: Self Introduction: Oden Eriksson

Not to speak of Norrbotten, a really small part of the world :) --alec On 4/5/14, Paulo César Pereira de Andrade wrote: > 2014-04-03 7:50 GMT-03:00 Oden Eriksson : >> Hello, > > Hi Oden, > > Small Linux world, isn't it ? :-) > >> Been active with packaging, productization and maintaining pa

Re: F21 System Wide Change: Workstation: Disable firewall

On 4/15/14, Reindl Harald wrote: > > > Am 15.04.2014 11:01, schrieb Jaroslav Reznik: >> = Proposed System Wide Change: Workstation: Disable firewall = >> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Workstation_Disable_Firewall >> >> Change owner(s): Matthias Clasen >> >> The firewalld service will not

Re: F21 System Wide Change: Workstation: Disable firewall

On 4/15/14, drago01 wrote: > On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 6:13 PM, Andrew Lutomirski wrote: [cut] >> I keep thinking that, if I had unlimited time, I'd write a totally >> different kind of firewall. It would allow some policy (userspace >> daemon or rules loaded into the kernel) to determine when pro

Re: F21 System Wide Change: Workstation: Disable firewall

On 4/15/14, Andreas Tunek wrote: > I just want to say that I really support this feature. I do not see > any point in a firewall for a "Workstation". I have respect for the opinion that firewalld should be disabled although personally I am far from convinced, there are some arguments for that. B

Re: F21 System Wide Change: Workstation: Disable firewall

On 4/15/14, Michael Catanzaro wrote: > On Tue, 2014-04-15 at 20:31 +0200, Alec Leamas wrote: >> Anyway, I get the feeling that the hunt for the "really proper" fix is >> not that fruitful here. OTOH, if you limit the goals to fulfill the >> basic statement to not l

Re: The Forgotten "F": A Tale of Fedora's Foundations

On 4/22/14, Przemek Klosowski wrote: [cut] >> >> Everything in our repos is free, so putting the choice in the >> installer seems off to me. Our policy (which is complex and obviously >> driven by things stronger than the UX) generally leaves it to users >> post-install to add encumbered software.

Re: The Forgotten "F": A Tale of Fedora's Foundations

On 4/23/14, drago01 wrote: > On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 10:45 AM, Alec Leamas wrote: >> There are some aspects on this: >> - I don't think Fedora is able add non-free, patent-encumbered sw in >> e. g., in the way Ubuntu does - it fails on the fact that US law is >&g

Re: The Forgotten "F": A Tale of Fedora's Foundations

On 4/24/14, Christian Schaller wrote: > So decisions need to be general to allow us to look for a variety of options > to fulfill them. Lets say Fedora decided we want to make it > easier for our users to get more multimedia codecs. We would not get the > go ahead from legal to include a reposito

Re: Fedora GIT error (access denied)

On 2014-05-27 09:05, Simone Caronni wrote: Hello, I'm unable to commit to the newly unretired ndoutils package in the fedora branches (I'm the owner). This is the error I get: $ git push Counting objects: 10, done. Delta compression using up to 4 threads. Compressing objects: 100% (2/2), done

Re: Summary/Minutes from today's FESCo Meeting (2015-10-07)

On 09/10/15 21:13, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > I completely, wholeheartedly agree with you here. However, the > unfortunate fact of life is that we can lead a horse to water but > cannot make them drink. Our previous policy was essentially holding > the horse's head under the water until it drained

Re: Packaging of PlayOnLinux

On 15/10/15 16:50, Michael Cronenworth wrote: > On 10/15/2015 09:32 AM, Jiří Konečný wrote: >> That's my backup solution. But why RPMFusion if there won't be any >> problem with it in Fedora repository. > > I just linked you the problem with it, which you snipped out. Another precedence might be

Re: Recommended way of proposing changes in someone else Fedora packages configuration

On 18/10/15 18:46, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > On Sun, 18 Oct 2015 15:36:24 +0200 > Marcin Zajączkowski wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> I would like to propose a minor (yet important) change in one of the >> Fedora packages configuration (a SPEC file and/or a patch). Is it >> possible to create (something like) a

Patching workflow (Was: Recommended way of proposing changes ...)

On Sun Oct 18 20:00:23 UTC 2015 Kevin Fenzi wrote > On Sun, 18 Oct 2015 21:41:41 +0200 > Alec Leamas wrote: > >> Perhaps OT, but I cannot resist: Have you discussed the overall >> workflow here? Cloning package, unpack sources, create patches, make >> a build, revise

Re: Specs using %define

On 24/12/15 22:01, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: > To satisfy my curiosity, I grepped the convenient tarball of specfiles > (http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/repo/rpm-specs-latest.tar.xz) for lines > matching "(? there were more than 1900 hits. > iguanaIR (leamas) Fixed in gi

Re: is there a reason for starting zookeeper.service in background?

On 11/01/16 21:19, Christopher wrote: I'm a co-maintainer for ZooKeeper, and I'd like to help get this right, if possible. More importantly, I'm interested in setting a precedent for Java system services in systemd. So, forgive my ignorance, but what exactly is the generally recommended way of l

Re: is there a reason for starting zookeeper.service in background?

On 12/01/16 10:54, Muayyad AlSadi wrote: the problem here is the bash script wrapped around in the good old days of solr there used a param passed to solr.jar to make the fork magic in java (maybe it was --daemon) but now it's done in bash with "nohup" followed by "while true lsof -PniTCP:

Re: is there a reason for starting zookeeper.service in background?

On 12/01/16 19:33, Muayyad AlSadi wrote: Will I do agree it's a hack. But it's better than forking in bash. And usually I don't care about the exact time socket/port is active because zookeeper is supposed to handle fail over. [ the rest below..] Please don't top-post [1] Cheers! --alec [

Re: Fedora-Review 0.2.0

On 07/19/2012 09:22 PM, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: On Thu, 2012-07-19 at 13:20 -0600, Nathanael D. Noblet wrote: Thanks Pierre, Unfortunately there is no such file .config/fedora-review there is however a .config/fedora-create-review. I went a little bit too fast, the file is ~/.config/fedora-r

Re: Mass rebuild for Fedora 18 Complete

On 07/22/2012 10:33 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote: On Sun, 22 Jul 2012 21:28:28 +0100 Peter Robinson wrote: On Sun, Jul 22, 2012 at 9:21 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote: On Tue, 17 Jul 2012 07:39:31 -0500 Dennis Gilmore wrote: it was requested in https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/5222 that we do a ma

Re: Mass rebuild for Fedora 18 Complete

On 07/24/2012 12:08 PM, José Matos wrote: On 07/22/2012 10:09 PM, Alec Leamas wrote: First time on this list; I try to handle adobe-source-libraries which failed. It's just I don't know what to do. The build failed because recent gcc update revealed a bug in current boost. This bu

Re: Fedora-Review 0.2.0

On 08/02/2012 06:15 PM, José Matos wrote: On 07/11/2012 06:23 PM, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: Dear all, A new fedora-review is being brought to you. For me it fails like this: $ fedora-review -v -n octave-odepkg Exception down the road... Traceback (most recent call last): File "/usr/lib/pyt

Feature Branches or How To Come to a Conclusion

Back from holidays, I have five feature branches. This is somewhat insane, and I need to come to conclusions to trash, merge or update these. Here we go: koji: Use koji scratch builds. This is just a manpage update, and a separate script to download koji scratch builds. I could commit this m

Feature Branches or How To Come to a Conclusion

hm.. previous message with this heading was aimed for the fedora-review mailing list (fedorarev...@lists.fedorahosted.org). If anyone still wants to reply , please reply to that list. Otherwise, just ignore. --alec -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.

Re: Mass changes to packaging

On 08/21/2012 05:04 PM, Tom Lane wrote: " I'd like to see these macros back-ported into F17 and F16 RPM to remove this objection. If that doesn't happen, I'm going to resist using them in my spec files until they are in all active Fedora branches. regards, tom lane +1

Re: bohdi AutoQA: depcheck test FAILED

On 08/21/2012 04:22 PM, Kamil Paral wrote: hi, i need help, because the AutoQA DepCheck fails on the package speed-dreams,but the package was pushed anyway. AutoQA DepCheck log: http://autoqa.fedoraproject.org/results/418027-autotest/virt04.qa/depcheck/results/speed-dreams-2.1.0-1.html the probl

Re: bohdi AutoQA: depcheck test FAILED

On 08/21/2012 07:57 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: On 2012-08-21 9:36, Alec Leamas wrote: On 08/21/2012 04:22 PM, Kamil Paral wrote: hi, i need help, because the AutoQA DepCheck fails on the package speed-dreams,but the package was pushed anyway. AutoQA DepCheck log: http

Re: bohdi AutoQA: depcheck test FAILED

On 08/22/2012 10:53 AM, Kamil Paral wrote: Following this track: if I look into the build log for the 64-bit f17 build [1], it seems that the package doesn't require anything but the libenet-1.3.3(64-bit). So; in my simple eyes, this looks like AutoQA doesn't really understand the situation if

Re: bohdi AutoQA: depcheck test FAILED

On 08/22/2012 10:53 AM, Kamil Paral wrote: Following this track: if I look into the build log for the 64-bit f17 build [1], it seems that the package doesn't require anything but the libenet-1.3.3(64-bit). So; in my simple eyes, this looks like AutoQA doesn't really understand the situation if

Re: Unblocking packages: new review needed?

On 2012-11-07 15:47, tim.laurid...@gmail.com wrote: Sound very strange, it is not some kind orphan package, there have been out of Fedora and has to re-enter. It it an active maintained package in F17, there just have not worked with latest version for gnome-shell, because they change the way t

Re: Unblocking packages: new review needed?

On 2012-11-07 16:53, tim.laurid...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 10:07 AM, Alec Leamas <mailto:leamas.a...@gmail.com>> wrote: No top-posting in fedora-devel :) Sorry :) Besides that, I can just agree with Tim. The oldest package was reviewed less than a year

Bug 989946: what plugins are we running?

Seems that this bug [1], together with yesterday's libvoikko issue has opened a can of worms. Since the discussion seems to be rather general, it might make sense to continue here on the list. Trying to summarize some aspects, the first is how we make the decision what plugin(s) to run: - If w

Bug 989946: what plugins are we running?

PLease disregard previous message on this issue. Wrong list. --alec -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Overall fedora-review test results.

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 some false warnings and other errors. Some are detected and fixed,

Re: Overall fedora-review test results.

On 2013-08-22 15:41, Richard Shaw wrote: Very interesting... What's the possibility of parsing all the data and sending individual reports to -owner@ ? I don't know that I'd want to get this type of thing frequently, but once would be nice... Richard The data is already parsed, I hav

Re: Overall fedora-review test results.

On 2013-08-22 15:54, Richard Shaw wrote: Yes... sorry I assumed you knew... -ow...@fedoraproject.org Richard No, I don't know much. Well, it should basically be piece of cake to generate such an email for all packages. Before doing such a thing I would certa

Re: Overall fedora-review test results.

On 2013-08-22 17:45, Michael Schwendt wrote: 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

Re: Overall fedora-review test results.

On 2013-08-22 19:20, Michael Schwendt wrote: 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

Overall rawhide package testing.

As agreed [1], we have run fedora-review on (almost) all packages in current rawhide. The results are now available at [2]. Here are reports on issues by package and packages by issue. We have discussed sending email about these results to the package owners. Is this a good idea? In any case,

Re: Overall rawhide package testing.

On 08/26/2013 03:38 PM, Richard Shaw wrote: One more... http://leamas.fedorapeople.org/fedora-review/tree/packages/qastools CheckDesktopFileInstall -- Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install -- if there is such a file. The project installs it's own so I'm using de

Re: Overall rawhide package testing.

On 08/26/2013 03:50 PM, Parag N(पराग़) wrote: Hi, On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 6:49 PM, Parag N(पराग़) <mailto:panem...@gmail.com>> wrote: Hi, On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 5:49 PM, Alec Leamas mailto:leamas.a...@gmail.com>> wrote: As agreed [1], we have run f

Re: Overall rawhide package testing.

On 08/26/2013 04:12 PM, Christopher Meng wrote: A script typo in README: 13733 packagea are reported here. should be: 13733 packages are reported here. Here, the review is tough. Fixed, thanks! --alec -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman

  1   2   3   4   >