devel November 2009

devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

330 participants
292 discussions

netcdf update and soname bump
by Orion Poplawski 12 Nov '09

12 Nov '09

I'm about to build a netcdf 4.1.0 beta snapshot for F-13. This is a soname bump (libnetcdf.so.4 -> libnetcdf.so.6). It also enables the netcdf4, dap, and ncgen4 features of netcdf. The following packages will need to get rebuilt: cdo-0:1.0.8-6.fc12.i686 dap-netcdf_handler-0:3.8.3-2.fc12.i686 gdal-0:1.6.1-2.fc12.i686 gdl-0:0.9-0.7.rc3.fc12.i686 GMT-0:4.5.1-1.fc12.i686 grace-0:5.1.22-5.fc12.i686 grads-0:1.9b4-28.fc12.i686 kst-netcdf-0:1.8.0-3.fc12.i686 nco-0:3.9.8-2.fc12.i686 ncview-0:1.93c-6.fc12.i686 netcdf-decoders-0:5.0.0-5.fc12.i686 netcdf-perl-0:1.2.4-2.fc12.i686 ScientificPython-0:2.8-6.fc11.i586 scrip-0:1.4-14.fc12.i686 wgrib2-0:1.8.1-1.fc12.i686 xgridedit-0:4.5.1-1.fc12.i686 I'm the owner for several of these and can rebuild others if needed as well. -- Orion Poplawski Technical Manager 303-415-9701 x222 NWRA/CoRA Division FAX: 303-415-9702 3380 Mitchell Lane orion(a)cora.nwra.com Boulder, CO 80301 http://www.cora.nwra.com

1 2

FF 3.5.5 for F-12
by Bojan Smojver 12 Nov '09

12 Nov '09

What happened to that? It's been built in Koji but it's not Rawhide or updates... -- Bojan

2 1

rawhide report: 20091112 changes
by Fedora compose checker 12 Nov '09

12 Nov '09

Compose started at Thu Nov 12 08:15:08 UTC 2009 Summary: Added Packages: 0 Removed Packages: 0 Modified Packages: 0

1 0

Re: Broken dependencies with Fedora 11 updates-testing - 2009-11-11
by Rahul Sundaram 11 Nov '09

11 Nov '09

On 11/12/2009 01:05 AM, Michael Schwendt wrote: > The following packages in the repository suffer from broken dependencies: > > ====================================================================== > The results in this summary consider Test Updates! > ====================================================================== > > package: tremulous-1.1.0-8.fc11.i586 from fedora-11-i386 > unresolved deps: > libopenal.so.0 --- Seriously, can the openal maintainer please stop breaking the ABI in updates? This isn't the first time. Is there a real necessity to do so? Rahul

4 5

Fedora 12 test machine for package maintainers
by Kevin Fenzi 11 Nov '09

11 Nov '09

Greetings. I have updated my test machine resources for Fedora package maintainers with a new Fedora 12 instance: abraxas.scrye.com or f12-test.scrye.com. As always you can see the full list and get more info at: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Machine_Resources_For_Package_Maintaine… Please feel free to use the new instance to test bugs, build packages or otherwise anything Fedora related that will assist you. Enjoy. kevin _______________________________________________ Fedora-devel-announce mailing list Fedora-devel-announce(a)redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-announce

2 2

Outage Notification - 2009-11-11 21:00 UTC
by Mike McGrath 11 Nov '09

11 Nov '09

There will be an outage starting at 2009-11-11 21:00 UTC, which will last approximately 1 hours. To convert UTC to your local time, take a look at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Infrastructure/UTCHowto or run: date -d '2009-11-11 21:00 UTC' Affected Services: DNS Torrent Websites Ticket Link: https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-infrastructure/ticket/1785 Reason for Outage: The new memory is on site, we're going to replace it. Contact Information: Please join #fedora-admin in irc.freenode.net or respond to this email to track the status of this outage. _______________________________________________ Fedora-devel-announce mailing list Fedora-devel-announce(a)redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-announce

1 0

Re: rpms/iptstate/F-12 iptstate.spec,1.21,1.22
by Michael Schwendt 11 Nov '09

11 Nov '09

On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 09:17:58 +0000 (UTC), Paul wrote: > Author: stingray > > Update of /cvs/pkgs/rpms/iptstate/F-12 > %changelog > +* Tue Nov 10 2009 Paul P. Komkoff Jr <i(a)stingr.net> - 2.2.2-2 > +- rebuild for libnetfilter_conntrack-0.0.100 > + > +* Tue Nov 10 2009 Thomas Woerner <twoerner(a)redhat.com> 2.2.2-1 > +- new version 2.2.2 > +- removed upstream strerror patch > +- fixed package description (rhbz#140516) > + Caution! Dude, you should slow down quite a bit and give all this a second thought. You have not yet committed and built the new libnetfilter_conntrack upgrade for F-12. Rebuilding the other packages for F-12 won't work correctly because of that. They are built against the old library. Take your time. Update your cvs working-directory with "cvs up -d" to get the F-12 branch, then follow Fedora procedures for this ABI-incompatible library upgrade (which means to request a koji buildroot override tag from Fedora Release Engineering so the new libnetfilter_conntrack for F-12 will be made available in the koji buildroot _prior_ to pushing it into the stable updates repository. That way you can prepare all rebuilds without pushing any incompatible upgrades into the stable repo). If you need help, ask your sponsor, or ask on this list.

4 4

Are conflicts in debuginfo packages OK?
by Björn Persson 11 Nov '09

11 Nov '09

Hello, could someone help me understand the rules about file conflicts and debuginfo packages? I thought there was a rule that if the 32-bit and 64-bit versions of a package provide the same file, then the file's contents must be identical in both packages, with an exception for binary executable files in standard locations like /usr/bin. Now I've noticed that lots of debuginfo packages seem to be violating this rule. The debuginfo packages put files in /usr/lib/debug/usr/bin and similar directories, and the exception doesn't seem to apply to these directories, because RPM complains about conflicts when I try to install both architecture versions of a debuginfo package. I don't see that I as a packager can do anything to prevent these conflicts. Shall I conclude that I don't need to care about conflicts between architecture versions of debuginfo packages? Or shall I try to avoid conflicts in debuginfo packages for libraries, but not for programs? I think I can avoid debuginfo conflicts in packages that provide only libraries, but maybe I shouldn't bother? Björn Persson

7 10

Heads up: gstreamer/gstreamer-plugins-base updates in F12
by Bastien Nocera 11 Nov '09

11 Nov '09

Heya, I've packaged snapshots of gstreamer and gstreamer-plugins-base to fix a number of bugs. So if you saw: - Hangs on startup when using file opened has a corresponding text subtitle in Totem - Requiring a restart of Totem or Rhythmbox after installing missing plugins Packages (will be shortly in updates-testing): http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=140790 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=140831 If you see regressions, or that those bugs above aren't fixed for you, please file bugs in the Red Hat bugzilla Cheers

1 0

rpm %verify
by Steve Grubb 11 Nov '09

11 Nov '09

Hello, I have 2 bugzillas asking for %verify to be added to %config files. I am wondering if this is a good idea at all. The issue is that if you wanted to verify whether or not config files have changed, then this causes you to lose that ability. Adding --noscript to the verify command does not make rpm suddenly report the issues it was hiding. Does this mean that rpm is not working right? Or does this mean that we cannot use rpm for integrity checking for any package that has %verify attributes for config files? Thanks, -Steve PS - Anyone wanting to experiment can use the setup package and change the /etc/hosts file to verify what I am saying.

3 3

← Newer
1
...
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
...
30
Older →

Jump to page:

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

devel November 2009