weird kernel update?
by Jack Tanner
Installing for dependencies:
kernel x86_64 2.6.22.5-76.fc7 updates 17 M
Removing:
kernel x86_64 2.6.22.1-41.fc7 installed 63 M
That's quite a difference in file sizes. Is something fishy?
16 years, 8 months
Fedora Extras Package Build Report 2007-09-12
by Fedora Koji Build System
Packages built and released for Fedora Extras 6: 6
(!) edac-utils-0.9-6.fc6 : INVALID rebuild, not published!
lesstif-0.95.0-19.fc6
mediawiki-1.8.5-9.fc6
mksh-31c-1.fc6
NEW wdaemon-0.11-1.fc6 : Hotplug helper for Wacom X.org driver
NEW xsc-1.5-2.fc6 : A clone of the old vector graphics video game Star Castle
Changes in Fedora Extras 6:
edac-utils-0.9-6.fc6
--------------------
* Tue Jul 17 2007 Aristeu Rozanski <arozansk(a)redhat.com> 0.9-6
- Building for FC6 package
lesstif-0.95.0-19.fc6
---------------------
* Sat Sep 01 2007 Hans de Goede <j.w.r.degoede(a)hhs.nl> 0.95.0-19
- Fix more 64 bit XChange/GetWindowProperty issues (inspired by the
cut and paste 64 bit fix which was an XChange/GetWindowProperty issue too)
- Fix z88: http://www.z88.uni-bayreuth.de/ not working with lesstif
- Stop lessstif from spewing messages about XtUngrab... (bz 210384)
* Thu Aug 30 2007 Hans de Goede <j.w.r.degoede(a)hhs.nl> 0.95.0-18
- Fix cut and paste from / to lesstif apps on 64 bits machines (bz 243508)
- Fix accelkeys which use more then one modifier (bz 214018)
* Thu Aug 30 2007 Hans de Goede <j.w.r.degoede(a)hhs.nl> 0.95.0-17
- Update included Debian 0.94.4-2 patch to the Debian 0.95.0-2 patch
- Not only include but also actually apply Debian's patches (bz 261821)
- Add 2 patches with small fixes from lesstif CVS (bz 261821)
- Do not apply lesstif-64.patch it causes more issues then it fixes (bz 253456)
* Wed Aug 15 2007 Patrice Dumas <pertusus(a)free.fr> 0.95.0-16
- conform better to openmotif API, lesstif-64.patch, by
kgallowa at redhat.com
- fix licenses
- keep timestamps
- add mwm xsession file
mediawiki-1.8.5-9.fc6
---------------------
* Wed Sep 12 2007 Ville Skyttä <ville.skytta at iki.fi> - 1.8.5-9
- Update to 1.8.5 (security; http://secunia.com/advisories/26772/, #287881)
mksh-31c-1.fc6
--------------
* Wed Sep 12 2007 Robert Scheck <robert(a)fedoraproject.org> 31c-1
- Upgrade to 31c
- Added a buildrequirement to ed, added arc4random.c file
* Tue Sep 11 2007 Robert Scheck <robert(a)fedoraproject.org> 31b-1
- Upgrade to 31b
- Use script to get %check happy (thanks to Thorsten Glaser)
wdaemon-0.11-1.fc6
------------------
* Wed Aug 01 2007 Aristeu Rozanski <arozansk(a)redhat.com> 0.11-1
- Updated to version 0.11
xsc-1.5-2.fc6
-------------
* Sat Sep 08 2007 Jon Ciesla <limb(a)jcomserv.net> - 1.5-2
- Added h-i-theme requires, xparentfied icon.
* Thu Sep 06 2007 Jon Ciesla <limb(a)jcomserv.net> - 1.5-1
- create.
16 years, 8 months
openoffice-pyuno and external python programs
by Zoltan Kota
Hi,
Files from openoffice.org-pyuno are installed under
/usr/lib/openoffice.org2.0. So, 'import uno' from python gives an import
error. How should we support external programs to use this module? Should
we patch the program to import uno.py from this directory
somehow? Or would be better to change the installation path in the
openoffice.org-pyuno package?
Debian for instance installs
/usr/share/pycentral/python-uno/site-packages/uno.py
/usr/share/pycentral/python-uno/site-packages/unohelper.py
/usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/pyuno.so
Zoltan
16 years, 8 months
Proposed changes to buildsys-build group (otherwise known as the Exceptions list)
by Jesse Keating
Recently there has been some fluctuation in the implicit list of
packages expected to be in the minimal build roots. Due to this we've
had some discussions on what to adjust to ease the pain and re-set
expectations going forward.
As such there is a proposal to add a few packages to the Explicit
list. Some were already being pulled in implicitly but we want to make
them explicit. Some had been missing lately and we'd like them back.
The current list is:
bzip2
unzip
fedora-release
redhat-rpm-config
perl
diffutils
make
cpio
gcc
coreutils
sed
which
rpm-build
gzip
patch
gcc-c++
tar
bash
(perl-devel has been short term added to help with some transitions
with the perl -> perl-devel split, however it is now going to be
removed)
The proposed new explicit list would look like:
bzip2
unzip
fedora-release
redhat-rpm-config
diffutils
make
cpio
gcc
coreutils
sed
which
rpm-build
gzip
patch
gcc-c++
tar
bash
util-linux-ng
gawk
info
grep
findutils
This would currently dep resolve out to 8 new packages, and 3M more
content in the buildroot.
For reference a really minimal install (@core, kernel) with rpm-build
added in, would need the following packages to have at least this
minimal buildroot:
bzip2
gcc-c++
make
redhat-rpm-config
unzip
which
binutils
cpp
gcc
glibc-devel
glibc-headers
kernel-headers
libgomp
libstdc++-devel
This would be accomplished by a simple 'yum groupinstall
buildsys-build'. It's still a few more things that have to be added
than I'm comfortable with, I'd much prefer that a micro install +
rpm-build gave you what was in the minimal buildroot so that you could
have confidence in the BuildRequires, but I'm willing to bend a bit.
Along with these changes would be some clearer text regarding what can
be assumed and what can't. Only the Explicit list would be given in
the wiki, and only things in the explicit list would be absolutely OK
to assume. Anything else should be regarded as "bonus" only and
subject to potential change. I have asked Seth Vidal to help create a
yum utility that you could run on your system to see what today would
bring from installing the minimal build root. Something along the
lines of yum-groupdeplist buildsys-build.
Please respond with your comments / questions. I'd like to make these
changes as soon as possible to avoid more churn in spec files.
--
Jesse Keating
Fedora -- All my bits are free, are yours?
16 years, 8 months
Making the xine-lib-extras nondependent on xine-lib-arts?
by Martin Sourada
Hi,
I noticed one thing that cheered me up a bit - splitting of
xine-lib-arts from xine-lib-extras. Well, but the problem is that
xine-lib-extras, which has a set of useful plugins like support for
pulseaudio, is dependent on xine-lib-arts. And xine-lib-arts pushes arts
which in turn pushes qt. If I'd like to use xine-lib as an engine for
various gtk based players (totem-xine or gxine to name a few), with the
plugins in xine-lib-extras and don't want to push the qt dependency, it
is currently a no-go. Is there a chance of separating the arts plugin
completely?
Thanks,
Martin
16 years, 8 months
Package EOL troubles
by Quentin Spencer
Because of an upstream name change, some time ago, I built a version of
suitesparse, which obsoletes ufsparse, and is now in rawhide. I have
tried to complete the package EOL process for ufsparse (remove
everything and check in a dead.package file), but I can no longer commit
changes because for some reason I have been removed from the ACL. The
next step in the instructions was to send an e-mail to
rel-eng(a)fedoraproject.org requesting removal of the package from the
repository, which I did weeks ago, including an explanation of my
inability to check in changes to rpms/ufsparse/devel. Also, someone else
mentioned that ufsparse should be removed from rawhide on this list
nearly a month ago. The package is still in the rawhide repository. Is
there something else I should have done?
Quentin
16 years, 8 months
Plan for tomorrows (20070913) FESCO meeting
by Brian Pepple
Hi,
Please find below the list of topics that are likely to come up in the
next FESCo meeting that is scheduled for tomorrow, Thursday at 17:00 UTC
in #fedora-meeting on irc.freenode.org:
/topic FESCO-Meeting -- MISC -- obsoleting kmod proposal:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/DavidWoodhouse/KmodProposal - dwmw2, f13
/topic FESCO-Meeting -- MISC -- keep fedora-test-list &
fedora-packaging-list? - all
/topic Status Update: Compat Policy
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/JeremyKatz/DraftCompatPackages - jeremy
/topic Status Update: FESCo Proposal Template - f13
/topic FESCo meeting -- Free discussion around Fedora
You want something to be discussed? Send a note to the list in reply to
this mail and I'll add it to the schedule (I can't promise we will get
to it tomorrow, but we'll most likely will if we don't run out of time).
You can also propose topics in the meeting while it is in the "Free
discussion around Fedora" phase.
If your name/nick is on above list please update the status on the
Extras schedule pages in the wiki ahead of the meeting. That way all the
other FESCo members and interested contributors know what up ahead of
the meeting. And we will avoid long delays in the meeting -- those often
arise if someone describes the recent happenings on a topic directly in
the meeting while all the others have to wait for his slow typing...
Thanks,
/B
--
Brian Pepple <bpepple(a)fedoraproject.org>
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BrianPepple
gpg --keyserver pgp.mit.edu --recv-keys 810CC15E
BD5E 6F9E 8688 E668 8F5B CBDE 326A E936 810C C15E
16 years, 8 months
obsoleting in compat packages: is it right?
by Patrice Dumas
Hello,
Sometime there are obsolete of older packages by compat packages. The
idea is that when coming from an old package a compatible package is
needed. This is what is done in automake16. It is a compat package, and
it has
Obsoletes: automake = 1.6.3
It makes sense, however I am not sure that it is that right, since
somebody having automake-1.6.3-* would also want to have the latest
automake version.
Another issue is that for this scheme to be really effective, one should
have in automake15
Obsoletes: automake < 1.6.0 and automake >= 1.5.0
and in automake16
Obsoletes: automake < 1.7.0 and automake >= 1.6.0
which, unless I am wrong, cannot be done in rpm.
So, what do you think? Is that practice wrong, right, or should it be
left to the maintainer?
I would personally think that it is wrong, it could be right if one could
express that when updating 1.6.x, this package should be installed in
addition to the latest package with same name.
--
Pat
16 years, 8 months
Re: desc and summary
by Alain PORTAL
Le Sunday 09 September 2007 12:30:28 Alain PORTAL, vous avez écrit :
> Hi,
>
> How are built these pot files?
>
> There are macro and tag in spec(ification) files, that accept options to
> allow translations:
>
> Summary -> Summary(fr)
> %description -> %description -l fr
>
> So, as packager of some programs, I always add the french translation of
> description and summary in the spec file.
>
> But it seems that these translations aren't used to build the summary and
> desc fr.po files.
>
> Why?
Nobody can answer?
--
Les pages de manuel Linux en français
http://manpagesfr.free.fr
16 years, 8 months
Bugzilla account.
by David Woodhouse
Please could someone restore my personal bugzilla account
(dwmw2(a)infradead.org) to its normal functionality.
For reasons which I'll explain (in graphic detail) quite soon, my other
account is temporarily inaccessible.
Until that particular silliness is concluded, however, there's no reason
why I should not be able to use my personal bugzilla account as any
normal Fedora contributor would.
Please could the Fedora Board ensure that we re-enable my account ASAP?
Thanks.
--
dwmw2
16 years, 8 months
