devel-announce August 2007

devel-announce@lists.fedoraproject.org

10 participants
17 discussions

Changes to cvsadmin requests and acls
by Toshio Kuratomi 08 Aug '07

08 Aug '07

Hello Packagers, Over the next several weeks we're going to be transitioning away from the owner.list and pkg.acl files to the long awaited Package Database. As a transitional step we're going to continue to have our cvsadmins handling the changes to owners.list but the changes will go to the Database instead of to the owners.list file. There are two changes to your immediate workflow that you should be aware of: 1) pkg.acl files no longer serve acls. Instead, this information is contained in the packageDB. If you would like to have an acl changed, please use a cvsadmin request or see my note at the bottom of this message[1]_. 2) To make processing requests easier for the cvsadmins it would be greatly appreciated if you can use your Fedora username instead of email address in your cvsadmin requests. The Package Database keys off of the Fedora Account so doing this will let the admins handle the requests without having to lookup the username in the account system. The updated instructions for cvsadmin requests are here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/CVSAdminProcedure [1]_: After testing this for a few weeks we'll be announcing the general availability of many of these functions without having to go through a cvsadmin. If you would like to test the functionality knowing that there is no documentation and that you may run into glaring bugs, please send me email or get in touch with me on irc.freenode.net in #fedora-devel or #fedora-admin -- abadger1999 Thanks, Toshio Kuratomi

1 0

Announcing Fedora 8 Test 1 (7.90)
by Jesse Keating 07 Aug '07

07 Aug '07

We interrupt your rawhide for a moment to make a small announcement. Fedora 8 Test one has been loosed upon the world today. Included in this release is a "Fedora" installable 'choose your own adventure' style set of isos and trees for i386, x86_64, and ppc(64). Also included are Live images of both the Fedora Desktop and the Fedora KDE desktop. These are available for both i686 and x86_64 (x86_64 is DVD size only). Remember these can be used on USB media via the livecd-iso-to-disk utility available in the livecd-tools package. Test 1 is for "alpha" users. This is the time when we would like to have full community participation. Without this participation both hardware and software functionality suffers. We need your help. Join us! Road Map And Release Schedule ============================= This is the first test release of the Fedora 8 release, which is scheduled for November 8, 2007. For further information see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/8/ How to get it: ============= DVD and network installation are available. We also offer two different varieties of installable Live media. http://fedoraproject.org/get-fedora.html For those of you already running rawhide, all you need to do is yum update. You may already have packages newer than Test 1 installed. Bug reporting and tracking: ========================== The Release Engineering and QA teams keep track of bugs that are considered release blockers. You can see that list here: http://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/showdependencytree.cgi?id=F8Blocker In addition, a list of non-blocker bugs that should be fixed for Fedora 8 if possible can be found here: http://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/showdependencytree.cgi?id=F8Target Please check these lists before reporting new bugs! Bugs for this release should be reported against the Fedora product, version 'f8test1'. You can use this convenient link to report bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/enter_bug.cgi?product=Fedora&version=f… About Fedora ============ Fedora is a set of projects sponsored by Red Hat and guided by the contributors. These projects are developed by a large community of people who strive to provide and maintain the very best in free, open source software and standards. The central Fedora project is an operating system and platform based on Linux that is always free for anyone to use, modify, and distribute, now and forever. You can help the Fedora Project community continue to improve Fedora if you file bug reports and enhancement requests. Refer to http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugsAndFeatureRequests for more information. Thank you for your participation! To find out more general information about Fedora, refer to the following Web page: http://fedoraproject.org -- Jesse Keating Fedora -- All my bits are free, are yours?

1 0

[LICENSE CHANGE] GNU Gengetopt
by Debarshi Ray 04 Aug '07

04 Aug '07

>From version 2.21 GNU Gengetopt (http://www.gnu.org/software/gengetopt/) has changed its license to "GPL version 3 or later". However this does not affect the code generated by Gengetopt and the info manual says: "The code that Gengetopt generates is also free software; however it is licensed with a simple all-permissive license instead of the GPL or LGPL. You are free to do anything you like with the generated code, including incorporating it into or linking it with proprietary software." If this is not a problem then I shall update the Fedora package to version 2.21 Happy hacking, Debarshi -- GPG key ID: 63D4A5A7 Key server: pgp.mit.edu

1 0

Rawhide unfrozen
by Jesse Keating 03 Aug '07

03 Aug '07

Given that we have a good tree set for F8 Test1 I have unfrozen rawhide. The results of which can be seen in the rawhide-report that just landed. Since F8 Test1 is not released yet (got to give mirrors time to get it) anybody who tracks rawhide will have moved on from what is in Test1, therefor "upgrades" to test1 are not possible. Thank you for your patience while we worked on Test1. -- Jesse Keating Fedora -- All my bits are free, are yours?

1 0

check 0.9.5 in rawhide
by Tom Callaway 02 Aug '07

02 Aug '07

I've revived check to push it to 0.9.5 in rawhide. If you are building against old check, please note that check now generates both static and shared libs. The check-static subpackage may be what you need to BuildRequires, along with check-devel. If this is too painful, I can go back to 0.9.3, just let me know. ~spot

1 0

dhcpv6 license correction
by David Cantrell 02 Aug '07

02 Aug '07

The dhcpv6 package has incorrectly identified its license for quite some time. The spec file noted the license was GPL. The license is actually BSD, so the spec file has been updated and the package in devel has been rebuilt. The BSD license covers the following packages related to dhcpv6: dhcpv6 dhcpv6-client libdhcp6client libdhcp6client-devel libdhcp6client-static -- David Cantrell <dcantrell(a)redhat.com> Red Hat / Westford, MA

1 0

Licensing guidelines changes
by Tom Callaway 02 Aug '07

02 Aug '07

Today, FESCo ratified a new policy for handling the License tag inside of package spec files. You can read the new Licensing Guidelines here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines What does this mean for Fedora package maintainers? It means that you're going to need to do a little bit of work. We want F8 packages to have the correct license tag before we release F8. Some questions (with answers): Q. Where is the list of approved licenses? A. It can be found here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing Q. One of my packages uses a license which is not listed, what should I do? A. Email the details, along with a copy of the license, to tcallawa(a)redhat.com Q. One of my packages uses a license which is listed as "bad", what should I do? A. Either remove the bits which are under the "bad" license, or remove the package from Fedora. If you're not sure what to do, you can email tcallawa(a)redhat.com, and I'll help. Q. My package is under the GPL/LGPL, do I really need to change it to note the version? A. Yes. This is very important, and will greatly assist us in tracking GPL license interoperability and interlinking conflicts. Q. How should I know if my package is using an "or later version" license clause? A. Some licenses (GPL, LGPL especially) can include an "or any later version" clause. This clause isn't invoked in the license text (at least, not for the GPL/LGPL), but rather, in the source code or corresponding documentation. Look in the source code and see if there is any reference to "any later version". The GPL sample text looks like this: This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. The GPL/LGPL "or any later version" clause is _only_ activated when upstream puts it in the source code or attached documentation, so if you can't find it outside of COPYING, it doesn't apply. If you do find it, you make sure the License identifier ends with a +. Q. Why can't I use "Distributable"/"BSD-ish"? A. Its far too vague. We need the specific information to help us perform faster license audits and legal compatibility checks. Q. Do I need to rebuild the package when I make the license tag change? A. In the development branch, yes, please. We're not requiring that you rebuild older branches, but please at least commit the fixed license tag to CVS for all branches, so that it gets picked up on the next update. Q. I want to help you handle Fedora Licensing, spot! A. Are you sure? Its a rather thankless job, you have to tell people that things can't go in Fedora. But if you're interested in helping out, drop me an email. Q. I have a question that you've not covered here, what should I do? A. Ask it. I'll try to answer it. :) ~spot

1 0

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

devel-announce August 2007