Fedora 18 : broken configuration for httpd 2.4
by Remi Collet
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
Testing some packages in Fedora 18, I noticed that lot of
configuration for httpd have not be fixed for new version 2.4.
So I open a tracker bug for this issues
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=871373
Currently I have filed ~40 bugs, and continue to check all
applications providing a httpd configuration file.
I you need more explanation on the required changes, feel free to ask.
Regards,
Remi.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.18 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://www.enigmail.net/
iEYEARECAAYFAlCP4MsACgkQYUppBSnxahiR4QCfX/tow2/DWTLn8jxwSc2D2ifX
4ssAn22FM/hfEnsyXzNfkc5FCujGIvIE
=6Wht
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
11 years, 5 months
rubygem-{bunny,moneta,ohai} package ownership
by Julian C. Dunn
I'm trying to take over the work Jonas Courteau started earlier this
year (see below) in regards to getting Opscode Chef into Fedora.
To start, I'd like to assume responsibility for the above orphaned
packages in Fedora, which are dependencies for Chef. I am already a
Fedora Packager but I can't seem to "Take Ownership" of said packages
in the package DB. Can anyone assist?
- Julian
On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 10:36 PM, Jonas Courteau <rpms(a)courteau.org> wrote:
> My apologies; the links on that were wrong. Big copy/paste error on my
> part; not a good start!
>
> The main package, rubygem-chef is at
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=823352, and the other
> packages are linked off of there.
>
> A little bit about myself: I'm a network administrator who has been
> using CentOS extensively for around 5 years, and Chef for about 3
> years. As part of this, I've done a fair amount of packaging of
> various software for our internal repository using mock and the EPEL
> packaging guidelines. A large part of my early packaging efforts
> involved packaging assorted Ruby gems.
>
> Recently, I've been working with opscode to get Chef packaged up for
> Fedora (and EPEL, in the future). There was a previous abortive
> attempt to get Chef into Fedora but the volunteer involved at the time
> had other requirements on his time. I'm looking to maintain this
> package (and its requirements) on a long-term basis, since there is a
> fair bit of demand to have Chef be a bit more widely available.
>
> Please let me know if you have any further questions, or if you have
> any suggestions on proceeding from here.
>
> Thanks!
> Jonas Courteau
> --
> devel mailing list
> devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
11 years, 5 months
Is RPM now stricter about checking for file conflicts?
by Michel Alexandre Salim
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
(originally posted to test@; Adam Williamson suggested it might be
more appropriate here)
Ever since I started tracking Fedora 18, Google Music Manager is no
longer installable, and now Oracle's Virtual Box cannot be installed
either (both from upstream Yum repositories).
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870655
In both cases, RPM and yum aborts with file conflicts -- /lib/modules
for VirtualBox and /usr/bin for google-musicmanager.
While, granted, these are upstream packaging bugs and those
directories should not be owned by the corresponding packages (they
are owned by filesystem), is there any reason why the same RPMs
install just fine previously?
(and if anyone knows who to contact at Google and Oracle's VBox team
respectively, that'd be great -- I tried contacting the Music Manager
team but the email listed in the RPM bounces, and the support reps
that respond through official channels don't even know what Linux is,
they sent me screenshot-grabbing instructions for Windows and Mac...)
Apologies if this s a dupe, I could only find one relevant thread
regarding file conflicts and that's regarding Samba 3 vs Samba 4 -
those apply to files whereas the file conflicts here are really about
directories.
Best regards,
- --
Michel Alexandre Salim
Fedora Project Contributor: http://fedoraproject.org/
Email: salimma(a)fedoraproject.org | GPG key ID: A36A937A
Jabber: hircus(a)jabber.ccc.de | IRC: hircus(a)irc.freenode.net
() ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail
/\ www.asciiribbon.org - against proprietary attachments
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://www.enigmail.net/
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJQjCvWAAoJEEr1VKujapN6N3cH/3FrXhxeCBrs3CwWpeSaZVbr
GBCVZg/vZ06uQqc0/1v8pfsZKXQ24UNxmlqmKnfAsW2GHXq2vwS6cBfd+I/phjZi
Z+mmw8wIAMaGm2ihbe8WK6f2tzzq/1jPggri7ofria3/c0EcqaNoLIiQrokAJTKo
l5rb46R4isaKzrDO7ijzl8vMhBT4NOo3ASD0P8w0YcTSZISehrHwEw8U/4Bzb6dC
7yPHsodmlGUrPTuzzlXBFfAkfG68T0Ws9QaC4aMpHcYlrK7lOXA4h+BLv/KPN/so
ByFKJiN6Hm/a96TjtqJgfrzLuFy/TGV9+RBRYapg0CHSBWehvhpT0sTSkiKLTIY=
=x1kZ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
11 years, 5 months
Packaging help needed: Prevent noarch package from requiring 32bit RPMs on a 64bit system
by Miro Hrončok
Hi,
I am trying to package slic3r -> it is a perl noarch package, but it
requires a lot of arch specific perl modules.
The Requires section form spec file:
Requires: perl(XML::SAX)
Requires: perl(Growl::GNTP)
Requires: perl(Net::DBus)
Requires: perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_%(eval "`%{__perl} -V:version`";
echo $version))
https://github.com/hroncok/SPECS/blob/master/slic3r.spec
The rest of Requires are automatically added.
When I built the package and add it to the repository together with
required packages I made, it requires arch mishmash on a 64bit system:
Install:
slic3r noarch myrepo
Install requires:
perl-Boost-Geometry-Utils i686 myrepo
perl-Class-Accessor noarch
perl-Class-Method-Modifiers noarch
perl-Crypt-CBC noarch
perl-Devel-Symdump noarch
perl-Digest-SHA x86_64
perl-Digest-SHA1 x86_64
perl-File-HomeDir noarch
perl-File-Which noarch
perl-Growl-GNTP noarch myrepo
perl-JSON noarch
perl-Language-Expr noarch myrepo
perl-Math-Clipper i686 myrepo
perl-Math-ConvexHull noarch myrepo
perl-Math-Expression-Evaluator noarch myrepo
perl-Math-Factor-XS i686 myrepo
perl-Math-Geometry-Voronoi i686 myrepo
perl-Math-Libm x86_64 myrepo
perl-Math-NumSeq noarch myrepo
perl-Math-PlanePath noarch myrepo
perl-Math-Prime-XS i686 myrepo
perl-Math-Symbolic noarch
perl-Module-Load noarch
perl-Module-Util noarch
perl-Moo noarch
perl-Net-DBus x86_64
perl-Params-Validate x86_64
perl-Parse-RecDescent noarch
perl-Pod-Coverage noarch
perl-Regexp-Grammars noarch
perl-Role-Tiny noarch
perl-SVG noarch
perl-Test-Pod noarch
perl-Test-Pod-Coverage noarch
perl-Test-Simple noarch
perl-UUID-Tiny noarch myrepo
perl-Wx x86_64
perl-XML-Twig noarch
perl-boolean noarch
perl-constant-defer noarch myrepo
perl-libintl x86_64
perl-parent noarch
perl-strictures noarch
Lines with myrepo are made by me, you can see specs here:
https://github.com/hroncok/SPECS/
As you can see, it installs 64bit required packages from officail
repositories, but it installs 32bit packages from mine (64bit packages
also exists, that's not the problem).
It installs slic3r, but it won't work, as it looks up its't arch
specific modules in 64bit directories.
If I manually run
yum install perl-Boost-Geometry-Utils perl-Math-Clipper
perl-Math-Factor-XS perl-Math-Geometry-Voronoi perl-Math-Prime-XS
slic3r
It works as expected (install 64bit packages).
What should I as a packager do, to avoid this situation?
Thank you very much.
Miro Hrončok
Jabber: miro(a)hroncok.cz
Telefon: +420777974800
11 years, 5 months
[Guidelines Change] Changes to the Packaging Guidelines
by Tom Callaway
Some changes to the Fedora Packaging Guidelines have been made:
---
In the specific case where multiple software components generate
identically named (but incompatible) binaries, Fedora Packagers should
make every effort to convince the upstreams to rename the binaries to
resolve the conflict (see: Packaging:Conflicts#Binary_Name_Conflicts).
However, if neither upstream is willing to rename the binaries to
resolve the conflict, AND the binaries are not viable candidates for
alternatives or environment modules (incompatible runtimes), as long as
there are no clear cases for both packages to be installed
simultaneously, explicit Conflicts are permitted at the packager's
discretion. Both packages must carry Conflicts in this case.
Be aware, adding explicit Conflicts means that if any other packages
depend on your package, you may be creating a chain-of-conflicts that
could cause user pain. Please consider this as a last resort.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Conflicts#Incompatible_Binary_Fi...
---
The PEAR section of the PHP Guidelines has been updated to reflect the
existence of a new macro, %{pear_metadir}, along with an example of how
it is to be used, and a new EPEL specific section relating to the fact
that %{pear_metadir} does not exist in RHEL php builds.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:PHP#PEAR_Modules
---
The MPI Guidelines have been updated to install the module files under a
"mpi" sub-directory and adds "conflict mpi" to the module files to avoid
being able to load multiple mpi modules at one time.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:MPI
---
These guideline changes were approved by the Fedora Packaging
Committee (FPC).
Many thanks to Remi Collet, Orion Poplawski, Michal Sekletar, and all of
the members of the FPC, for assisting in drafting, refining, and passing
these guidelines.
As a reminder: The Fedora Packaging Guidelines are living documents! If
you find something missing, incorrect, or in need of revision, you can
suggest a draft change. The procedure for this is documented here:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Committee#GuidelineChangeProcedure
Thanks,
~tom
_______________________________________________
devel-announce mailing list
devel-announce(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel-announce
11 years, 5 months
Fedora ARM weekly status meeting 2012-10-31
by Paul Whalen
Good day all,
This weeks Fedora ARM status meeting will take place today (Wednesday Oct 31st) in #fedora-meeting-1 on Freenode.
Times in various time zones (please let us know if these do not work):
PDT: 1pm
MDT: 2pm
CDT: 3pm
EDT: 4pm
UTC: 8pm
BST: 9pm
CST: 10pm
Current items on the agenda:
1) Fedora 18 ARM Alpha release
2) F18/19 build status - problem packages?
3) Koji Hub - speed issues, moving to Phoenix prior to PA push?
4) Kirkwood images - is anyone interested in assisting with their creation/testing?
4) Your topic here
If you have any other items you would like to discuss that are not mentioned, please feel free to send an email to the list or bring it up at the end of the meeting.
Paul
11 years, 5 months