Since its retirement from Fedora, SciDAVis has undergone
significant development and I think it is ready to be re-included in
our package collection. After a few months of private builds that I
distributed among co-workers and friends, I set up a copr and I've
been keeping up with the upstream project.
SciDAVis comes with a bundled copy of liborigin, which the upstream
developers helped me unbundle. Its version has been bumped to 3.0.0
internally, although there hasn't been a 3.0.0 release yet. In Fedora
we carry liborigin2 (code from the latest public release) and
liborigin (snapshot from 2008) which both help import different
versions of Origin project files. The new release will render them
SciDAVis and liborigin share a number of contributors, but at the
moment their codebases have diverged; upstream liborigin trunk has
been adjusted to work with development versions of LabPlot 2.x, while
the copy bundled with SciDAVis is closer to that of a future
liborigin-3.0.0 release, but they are not interchangeable. I asked the
developers to clarify their plans and I was told that the two
versions will merge back, though some API changes might come in the
I have checked if there are any packages at the moment that require
liborigin* or liborigin*-devel and I have found none (though I'd be
grateful if someone who feels more at ease with dnf could
double-check). If not for this divergence, I would submit scidavis and
liborigin3 for review as separate packages, with Provides & Obsoletes
for the previous liborigin* and liborigin*-devel versions and be done
with it. However I would have to use the unbundled copy from SciDAVis
as source for liborigin3. Should I proceed with that anyway or should
I keep it bundled until such time as the two codebases have merged?
I need/want/would like to build new node 6 for EL6, but gcc is too old.
For that reason, I'd like to use devtoolset-4-gcc, but the build fails
(obviously) because the package doesn't exist.
So, is there a way to make that work somehow?
I am not sure about enabling external repos during build, maybe someone
will be wiser.
Here's the build:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
as of now, Annobin has been enabled in Rawhide. This is special plugin for
gcc so something might break due to it (but not expected). Don't hesitate to
open a bug in that case.
Just small heads up.
- -Igor Gnatenko
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
I'm planning on updating bullet to 2.87 in rawhide over the weekend.
The following packages are affected:
$ dnf repoquery --source --alldeps --whatrequires "bullet*"
Last metadata expiration check: 0:37:51 ago on Tue 28 Nov 2017 07:31:59 PM EST.
I will take care of all of the rebuilds once the bullet build is complete.
apitrace 5.0 bundles libbacktrace, which looks like is living within the
gcc sources. libbacktrace is not build as a shared library from the gcc
sources, and not packaged.
Is it feasible to build libbacktrace as a shared library and ship it in
a corresponding package? Or should I rather go for a bundling exception
Eike Rathke and I are working on updating ICU from 57.x to 60.x in rawhide/F28. It includes a soname bump and has a few API changes. We'll do an ABI compat package to avoid breaking the world while rebuilds are ongoing.
We'll import it some time this week and I'll be coordinating rebuilds through my provenpackager powers.
We have been getting bounced emails from Axel Thimm for a while and I
don't have any other way to contact him. He was an early maintainer of
packages but has not been seen in fas since 2013.
He is the co-maintainer of the following packages:
rpms/apt -- Debian's Advanced Packaging Tool with RPM support ( master f26 f25 )
rpms/arpack -- Fortran 77 subroutines for solving large scale
eigenvalue problems ( master f26 f25 )
rpms/chrpath -- Modify rpath of compiled programs ( master f26 f25 )
rpms/courier-unicode -- A library implementing algorithms related to
the Unicode Standard ( master f26 f25 )
rpms/fail2ban -- Daemon to ban hosts that cause multiple
authentication errors ( master f26 f25 )
rpms/fakechroot -- Gives a fake chroot environment ( master f26 f25 )
rpms/fakeroot -- Gives a fake root environment ( master f26 f25 )
rpms/fedora-package-config-apt -- Fedora configuration files for the
apt-rpm package manager ( master f26 f25 )
rpms/freenx-server -- Free Software (GPL) Implementation of the NX
Server ( master f26 f25 )
rpms/ivtv-firmware -- Firmware for the Hauppauge PVR
250/350/150/500/USB2 model series ( master f26 f25 )
rpms/libcdaudio -- Control operation of a CD-ROM when playing audio
CDs ( master f26 f25 )
rpms/maildrop -- Mail delivery agent with filtering abilities ( master f26 f25 )
rpms/perl-Text-CharWidth -- Get number of occupied columns of a string
on terminal ( master f26 f25 )
rpms/perl-Text-WrapI18N -- Line wrapping with support for several
locale setups ( master f26 f25 )
rpms/php-pear-Auth-OpenID -- PHP OpenID ( master f26 f25 )
rpms/po4a -- A tool maintaining translations anywhere ( master f26 f25 )
rpms/synaptic -- Graphical frontend for APT package manager. ( master f26 f25 )
rpms/vtk -- The Visualization Toolkit - A high level 3D visualization
library ( master f26 f25 )
If anyone has had contact with him could he see if can fix his email?
Stephen J Smoogen.
This is a reminder that the webkitgtk and webkitgtk3 packages will be
retired from rawhide shortly after F26 is branched from rawhide. This
is due to numerous security issues affecting those packages (I just
counted 204 CVEs), many of which could allow remote code execution.
Bugs have already been filed against all directly-affected packages
Note: to count the vulnerabilities, I just manually added up the CVEs
listed at , ignoring the oldest advisory WSA-2015-0001, and
discounting five of the older vulnerabilities in WSA-2015-0002.
Reading logs from yesterdays FPC meeting , I think we should discuss
what is actually purpose of packaging guidelines and which version of
Fedora/EPEL/RHEL they actually targets.
Apparently, there are two camps of packagers in Fedora/EPEL. Those who want:
1) single version of .spec file to cover the whole Red Hat ecosystem.
2) clean .spec file following the latest and greatest packaging practices.
I personally belong to the group (2) and that is for several reasons:
a) I use Rawhide on daily basis and I develop only for Rawhide. If I do
changes in older Fedoras, then it is typically just bug fixes and
honestly, that does not happen often (I am POC of ~200 packages and I
submitted just 40 updates during last year ). And in fact, this is
official philosophy of updates , not just mine.
b) I spent time developing features which should simplify packaging (for
example in F27+, the RPM %setup macro can expand the .gem packages) and
I want to use these technologies to simplify my life and life of others.
c) As a proven packager and person who typically does rebuild of Ruby
packages, I really hate the branched .spec files where nobody knows what
was the purpose of the branches, most of the branches are for obsolete
and unsupported releases etc. It is quite hard to apply any improvements
into such packages. Moreover it is not realistic to test them. If they
were maintained, it would be different story, but the reality is different.
Don't get me wrong, I understand that there are packagers who has just
handful of packages and it is better for them to maintain just single
.spec file with all the branches and I don't mind them as long as the
packages are really actively maintained. But this approach just don't
scale and should be exception and not recommended practice.
To sum this up, my take on packaging guidelines is that *the guidelines
should document the most recent practices available in Rawhide and this
should be documented*. Covering all the exceptions necessary for older
Fedoras (not even mentioning RHEL/EPEL) makes the guidelines unreadable
and what is worse, they slow down entire development of Fedora.