devel May 2010

devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

264 participants
236 discussions

F-13 Branched report: 20100518 changes
by Fedora compose checker 19 May '10

19 May '10

Compose started at Tue May 18 23:41:21 UTC 2010 Updated Packages: lxdm-0.2.0-4.fc13 ----------------- * Tue May 18 2010 Christoph Wickert <cwickert(a)fedoraproject.org> - 0.2.0-4 - Fix env XAUTHORITY bug * Sun May 16 2010 Christoph Wickert <cwickert(a)fedoraproject.org> - 0.2.0-3 - Fix permissions of /var/run/lxdm - Add patches to fix some env settings - Add --debug option * Sun May 09 2010 Christoph Wickert <cwickert(a)fedoraproject.org> - 0.2.0-2 - Patch for SELinux problems (#564320) * Wed May 05 2010 Christoph Wickert <cwickert(a)fedoraproject.org> - 0.2.0-1 - Update to 0.2.0 Summary: Added Packages: 0 Removed Packages: 0 Modified Packages: 1

1 0

Re: Fedora 12 updates-testing report
by Michael Schwendt 19 May '10

19 May '10

> nagios-3.2.1-3.fc12 (FEDORA-2010-8702) > Update Information: > > Fix for broken update from previous nagios version. > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > ChangeLog: > > * Mon May 17 2010 Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov(a)gmail.com> - 3.2.1-3 > - Fixed severe issue with uninstalling main nagios package while > updating (see rhbz #590709 for details). > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > References: > > [ 1 ] Bug #590709 - Nagios uninstall by update > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=590709 Why oh why _does_ nagios-common obsolete nagios? In "cvs diff -r nagios-3_2_1-1_fc12 -r nagios-3_2_1-2_fc12 nagios.spec" you introduced the -common package. You made nagios require it, +Requires: nagios-common +Requires: user(nagios) +Requires(pre): user(nagios) +Requires: group(nagios) +Requires(pre): group(nagios) and you made nagios-common obsolete nagios, +%package common ... +Provides: user(nagios) +Provides: group(nagios) ... +Obsoletes: %{name} < 3.2.1-2 which broke installations because that update was marked stable after a week already. And now "the fix" is to make nagios obsolete itself but also keep nagios-common obsoleting itself? Why? Whatever you try to achieve with these Obsoletes, it won't work. You cannot get rid of an "unwanted" nagios package on users installations, because you do not know whether nagios is wanted. That lead to bz 590709. The update would have worked _without_ the Obsoletes. In -2_fc12 and -3_fc12! It would work just fine by _not adding_ those two Obsoletes at all. nagios-common would be pulled in where _needed_ because of the new deps. And where a user doesn't need the nagios package, it could be uninstalled, because nagios-plugins no longer depends on it but on nagios-common instead. Don't use Obsoletes in an attempt to just mess with user's system installation. nagios-common should not have ever obsoleted nagios, because the new package doesn't contain stuff that makes it a candidate for replacing nagios.

1 0

short window between fedora-release update and resuming of updates-testing
by Andre Robatino 19 May '10

19 May '10

If I haven't missed something, it looks like there was only a 2-day window (during a weekend) between the update to fedora-release-13-1 (which enabled updates and disabled updates-testing) http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2010-May/090747.html and the next push to updates-testing http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2010-May/090835.html and I can't find any public mention of this (though I know it was mentioned somewhere). This is crucial information for anyone installing from an image from before around May 8 (such as the Beta). If they miss the window, and then don't update fedora-release first, they end up with probably unwanted updates-testing packages. Just wondering, would it be possible and reasonable to have a flag associated with package updates that enable/disable repos, so that when an update includes them, do only those, and then notify that enabled repos have changed, so that another update should be done (or do it automatically)? If not, I think these windows should be publicized better, so people installing from earlier images don't end up with unwanted packages on their system. For example, since the Alpha and Beta are announced on the announce list, that might be a good place to announce this window as well.

6 7

[Test-Announce] 2010-05-18 - F-13-Final go / no go meeting recap
by James Laska 19 May '10

19 May '10

====================================== #fedora-meeting: F-13-Final Go / No Go ====================================== Meeting started by jlaska at 23:58:40 UTC. The full logs are available at http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2010-05-18/f-13-final-eng-r… . Meeting summary --------------- * Waiting for critical mass (jlaska, 23:59:07) * Why are we here? (jlaska, 00:03:40) * The purpose is to decide whether the Final release criteria have been met (jlaska, 00:04:10) * LINK: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_13_Final_Release_Criteria (jlaska, 00:04:16) * Go or No Go? (jlaska, 00:04:42) * LINK: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=587627 (adamw, 00:08:41) * LINK: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=592345 (jlaska, 00:09:44) * 1 remaining preupgrade bug -- fix needed by F-13 GA (jlaska, 00:13:21) * AGREED: F-12 preupgrade packages don't impact decision to go / no go (jlaska, 00:19:17) * Validation test summary - http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2010-May/091001.html (jlaska, 00:20:34) * AGREED: F-13-RC3 meets Final release criteria - Go for launch! (jlaska, 00:24:58) * What's next? (jlaska, 00:25:17) * LINK: http://blog.internetnews.com/skerner/2010/05/fedora-13-delay-fixes-linux-gr… < -- who is this guy? (ender2070, 00:27:37) * ACTION: jlaska to sync up with hughsi to see if he needs more testing on F-12 preupgrade (jlaska, 00:29:40) Meeting ended at 00:30:47 UTC. Action Items ------------ * jlaska to sync up with hughsi to see if he needs more testing on F-12 preupgrade Action Items, by person ----------------------- * jlaska * jlaska to sync up with hughsi to see if he needs more testing on F-12 preupgrade * **UNASSIGNED** * (none) People Present (lines said) --------------------------- * jlaska (69) * adamw (27) * Oxf13 (17) * ender2070 (5) * fenris02 (5) * MiKylie (5) * zodbot (3) * stickster (3) * gholms (2) * poelcat (2) * nirik (1) * hno (1) * McGiwer (1) Generated by `MeetBot`_ 0.1.4 .. _`MeetBot`: http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot _______________________________________________ test-announce mailing list test-announce(a)lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test-announce

1 0

Issues with bodhi (No JSON object could be decoded)
by BJ Dierkes 19 May '10

19 May '10

Hello all, Is anyone else experiencing these issues? $ bodhi -n --type bug mysql-mmm-2.2.1-1.fc12 --username derks Creating a new update for mysql-mmm-2.2.1-1.fc12 ServerError(https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/save, 200, Error returned from simplejson while processing https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/save: No JSON object could be decoded) Traceback (most recent call last): File "/usr/bin/bodhi", line 178, in main data = bodhi.save(**extra_args) File "/usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/fedora/client/bodhi.py", line 111, in save 'bugs': bugs, File "/usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/fedora/client/baseclient.py", line 316, in send_request req_params = req_params, auth_params = auth_params) File "/usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/fedora/client/proxyclient.py", line 313, in send_request {'url': url, 'err': str(e)}) ServerError: ServerError(https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/save, 200, Error returned from simplejson while processing https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/save: No JSON object could be decoded) I just did a successful push for EL5, now this. I had these issues 2 days ago with el5,fc12,fc13... which was the last time I tried. Am I missing something? Seems I'm getting a 200 response, but the update doesn't show up in admin updates at all. Using: bodhi-client-0.7.4-1.fc12 --- derks

2 2

Mono.Cecil and monodevelop
by Paul F. Johnson 18 May '10

18 May '10

Hi, For quite a while the packaging of monodevelop has patched using the supplied version of mono.cecil with the one found in gac (which according to the mono bods, isn't the right place for it - it is a work in progress so should not be considered stable) so that we have one version instead of lots of versions. The new version of MD ships with a different version of Mono.Cecil to the version found in gac and also build a decompiler based on that new code (Cecil.Decompiler.dll). I have tried a number of ways to build the newest version of MD using the gac version of Mono.Cecil but it never works (fails to build at the same point). As the new MD relies on a version of Mono.Cecil which is newer than the version in gac is it permissible to ship MD-2.4 with this newer version? The version in gac remains untouched by this new version so other applications reliant on the old version will still run. TTFN Paul -- Biggles was quietly reading his favourite book when Algy burst through the door. Distracted for a moment, Biggles surveyed what had happened and turned a page. "Algy old man" he said, clearing his throat, "use the handle next time..." - Taken from "Biggles combs his Hair"

2 7

Plan for today's FESCo meeting (2010-05-18)
by Bill Nottingham 18 May '10

18 May '10

(Apologies for the late notice; the normal chair is out today and this slipped through the cracks.) Following is the list of topics that will be discussed in the FESCo meeting today at 19:00UTC (3pm EDT) in #fedora-meeting on irc.freenode.net. = Followups = #351 Create a policy for updates - status report on implementation = New Business = #380 Approve Fedora 14 schedule = Fedora Engineering Services tickets = https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-engineering-services/report/6 = Open Floor = For more complete details, please visit each individual ticket. The report of the agenda items can be found at https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/report/9 If you would like to add something to this agenda, you can reply to this e-mail, file a new ticket at https://fedorahosted.org/fesco, e-mail me directly, or bring it up at the end of the meeting, during the open floor topic.

1 1

Fedora 13 laptop radeon graphics broken when connected to a docking station
by Pasi Kärkkäinen 18 May '10

18 May '10

Hello, I just installed Fedora 13 RC on my laptop (HP EliteBook 8530p) and I noticed the graphics are broken if I have the laptop on the docking station. Also F13 installer fails when the laptop is in the dock (display goes blank). What works: - F13 starts OK with only the internal laptop display in use, NOT connected to the dock, graphics/X works OK. The problem with the dock: - Screen goes blank early in the boot if I have the laptop on the dock and external display (DVI) in use, laptop lid closed, and I never get picture on the external display. - If I have the laptop on the dock with the external display connected and the laptop lid OPEN, I see Fedora boot/start and when X should start both the displays go blank. In all cases when the display goes blank I think the system crashes - at least nothing happens from ctrl-alt-del or from the power button. Any ideas how to troubleshoot? The display adapter is: RADEON(0): Chipset: "ATI Mobility Radeon HD 3650" (ChipID = 0x9591) kernel: 2.6.33.3-85.fc13.x86_64 lspci, dmesg, and Xorg.0.log attached. -- Pasi $ zegrep -i 'drm|radeon|ttm' dmesg-2.6.33.3-85.fc13.x86_64.gz [drm] Initialized drm 1.1.0 20060810 [drm] radeon defaulting to kernel modesetting. [drm] radeon kernel modesetting enabled. radeon 0000:01:00.0: PCI INT A -> GSI 16 (level, low) -> IRQ 16 radeon 0000:01:00.0: setting latency timer to 64 [drm] radeon: Initializing kernel modesetting. [drm] register mmio base: 0xD8300000 [drm] register mmio size: 65536 [drm] Clocks initialized ! [drm] Detected VRAM RAM=256M, BAR=256M [drm] RAM width 128bits DDR [TTM] Zone kernel: Available graphics memory: 2012172 kiB. [ttm] Initializing pool allocator. [drm] radeon: 256M of VRAM memory ready [drm] radeon: 512M of GTT memory ready. radeon 0000:01:00.0: irq 33 for MSI/MSI-X [drm] radeon: using MSI. [drm] radeon: irq initialized. [drm] GART: num cpu pages 131072, num gpu pages 131072 [drm] Loading RV635 Microcode platform radeon_cp.0: firmware: requesting radeon/RV635_pfp.bin platform radeon_cp.0: firmware: requesting radeon/RV635_me.bin platform radeon_cp.0: firmware: requesting radeon/R600_rlc.bin [drm] ring test succeeded in 1 usecs [drm] radeon: ib pool ready. [drm] ib test succeeded in 0 usecs [drm] Enabling audio support [drm] Radeon Display Connectors [drm] Connector 0: [drm] VGA [drm] DDC: 0x7e40 0x7e40 0x7e44 0x7e44 0x7e48 0x7e48 0x7e4c 0x7e4c [drm] Encoders: [drm] CRT1: INTERNAL_KLDSCP_DAC1 [drm] Connector 1: [drm] LVDS [drm] Encoders: [drm] LCD1: INTERNAL_KLDSCP_LVTMA [drm] Connector 2: [drm] DVI-D [drm] HPD1 [drm] DDC: 0x7e60 0x7e60 0x7e64 0x7e64 0x7e68 0x7e68 0x7e6c 0x7e6c [drm] Encoders: [drm] DFP1: INTERNAL_UNIPHY [drm] Connector 3: [drm] HDMI-A [drm] HPD2 [drm] DDC: 0x7e60 0x7e60 0x7e64 0x7e64 0x7e68 0x7e68 0x7e6c 0x7e6c [drm] Encoders: [drm] DFP2: INTERNAL_UNIPHY [drm] fb mappable at 0xC0141000 [drm] vram apper at 0xC0000000 [drm] size 7257600 [drm] fb depth is 24 [drm] pitch is 6912 fbcon: radeondrmfb (fb0) is primary device fb0: radeondrmfb frame buffer device [drm] Initialized radeon 2.0.0 20080528 for 0000:01:00.0 on minor 0

2 5

[Test-Announce] F-13-Final Go/No-Go meeting @ 2010-05-19 00:00 UTC / 2010-05-18 @ 8pm EDT
by James Laska 18 May '10

18 May '10

# F-13-Final Go/No-Go meeting # Date: 2010-05-19 @ 00:00 UTC [1] # Date: 2010-05-18 @ 20:00 EDT, 17:00 PDT # Location: #fedora-meeting on irc.freenode.net Join us on irc.freenode.net #fedora-meeting for this important meeting. "Before each public release Development, QA, and Release Engineering meet to determine if the release criteria are met for a particular release. This meeting is called the: Go/No-Go Meeting." "Verifying that the Release criteria are met is the responsibility of the QA Team." For more details about this important meeting see: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Engineering_Readiness_Meetings Thanks, James [1] To convert UTC to your local time, take a look at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Infrastructure/UTCHowto _______________________________________________ test-announce mailing list test-announce(a)lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test-announce

1 0

KDE-SIG meeting report (20/2010)
by Jaroslav Reznik 18 May '10

18 May '10

This is a report of the weekly KDE-SIG-Meeting with a summary of the topics that were discussed. If you want to add a comment please reply to this email or add it to the related meeting page. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- = Weekly KDE Summary = Week: 20/2010 Time: 2010-05-18 14:00 UTC Meeting page: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SIGs/KDE/Meetings/2010-05-18 Meeting minutes: http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora- meeting/2010-05-18/kde-sig.2010-05-18-14.04.html Meeting log: http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2010-05-18/kde- sig.2010-05-18-14.04.log.html ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- = Participants = * Jaroslav Reznik * Kevin Kofler * Rex Dieter * Steven Parrish * Than Ngo * Thomas Janssen * Lukas Tinkl ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- = Agenda = * topics to discuss: o backport Solid and KNM ModemManager support? o default install paths for apidocs follow-up o kmail 2? o meeting with board * recent bugs: o (none) = Summary = backport Solid and KNM ModemManager support? * Solid and KNM are getting mobile broadband support [1] [2] o but it targets KDE SC 4.6.0 o do we want it earlier? is this priority for us? * ACTION: Kevin_Kofler to check current state ans possibility of backport for unofficial updates o in this case we need testers * AGREED: to wait for now default install paths for apidocs follow-up * AGREED: /usr/share/doc/HTML/en/%{name}-apidocs as a default path for apidocs o what about non KDE apidocs... require kde-filesystem? next meeting... kmail 2? * KMail is being ported to Akonadi o we are afraid - it can broke our KDE PIM solution o should we skip KDE PIM 4.5? o what about kde-l10n? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- = Next Meeting = http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SIGs/KDE/Meetings/2010-05-25 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- = Links = [1] http://lamarque-lvs.blogspot.com/2010/05/solid-and-modemmanager.html [2] http://lamarque-lvs.blogspot.com/2010/05/solid-and-modemmanager- update.html -- Jaroslav Řezník <jreznik(a)redhat.com> Software Engineer - Base Operating Systems Brno Office: +420 532 294 275 Mobile: +420 602 797 774 Red Hat, Inc. http://cz.redhat.com/

1 0

← Newer
1
...
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
...
24
Older →

Jump to page:

2026

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

devel May 2010