Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=456138
Summary: Review Request: edb - Debugger based on the ptrace API and QT4 Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: nicoleau.fabien@gmail.com QAContact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: fedora-package-review@redhat.com,notting@redhat.com
Spec URL: http://nicoleau.fabien.free.fr/rpms/SPECS/edb.spec SRPM URL: http://nicoleau.fabien.free.fr/rpms/srpms.fc9/edb-0.9.0-1.fc9.src.rpm Description: On Windows, OllyDbg is the tool of choice, but there is no Linux (or any other *nix) equivalent that I could find. Sure we have GDB, but GDB and all it's various frontends tend to lean towards debugging applications to which we have the source. (and possibly more). edb is currently based on the ptrace API.
One of the main goals of this debugger is modularity. The interface is written in QT4 and thus source portable to many platforms. The debugger core is a plugin and the platform specific code is isolated to just a few files, porting to a new OS would require porting these few files and implementing a plugin which implements the DebuggerCoreInterface" interface. Also, because the plugins are based on the QPlugin API, and do their work through the DebuggerCoreInterface object, they are almost always portable with just a simple recompile.
Rebuild under koji is OK : http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=730147 Rebuild under mock fedora-9-i386 is OK Rebuild under mock fedora-8-i386 is OK rpmlint output : [eponyme@FEDOBOX tmp]$ rpmlint edb-0.9.0-1.fc9.i386.rpm edb-0.9.0-1.fc9.src.rpm edb-debuginfo-0.9.0-1.fc9.i386.rpm edb-plugins-0.9.0-1.fc9.i386.rpm 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. [eponyme@FEDOBOX tmp]$
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: edb - Debugger based on the ptrace API and QT4
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=456138
------- Additional Comments From nicoleau.fabien@gmail.com 2008-07-28 03:37 EST ------- Update for 0.9.1 : Spec URL: http://nicoleau.fabien.free.fr/rpms/SPECS/edb.spec SRPM URL: http://nicoleau.fabien.free.fr/rpms/srpms.fc9/edb-0.9.1-1.fc9.src.rpm
rpmlint output : [builder@FEDOBOX tmp]$ rpmlint edb-0.9.1-1.fc9.i386.rpm edb-0.9.1-1.fc9.src.rpm edb-debuginfo-0.9.1-1.fc9.i386.rpm edb-plugins-0.9.1-1.fc9.i386.rpm 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. [builder@FEDOBOX tmp]$
As it's an x86 debugger, ppc and ppc64 are excluded.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: edb - Debugger based on the ptrace API and QT4
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=456138
------- Additional Comments From nicoleau.fabien@gmail.com 2008-07-31 17:26 EST ------- Update for 0.9.2 : Spec URL: http://nicoleau.fabien.free.fr/rpms/SPECS/edb.spec SRPM URL: http://nicoleau.fabien.free.fr/rpms/srpms.fc9/edb-0.9.2-1.fc9.src.rpm
[builder@FEDOBOX rpmbuild]$ rpmlint /home/builder/rpmbuild/SRPMS/edb-0.9.2-1.fc9.src.rpm /home/builder/rpmbuild/RPMS/i386/edb-0.9.2-1.fc9.i386.rpm /home/builder/rpmbuild/RPMS/i386/edb-plugins-0.9.2-1.fc9.i386.rpm /home/builder/rpmbuild/RPMS/i386/edb-debuginfo-0.9.2-1.fc9.i386.rpm 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. [builder@FEDOBOX rpmbuild]$
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=456138
--- Comment #3 from Nicoleau Fabien nicoleau.fabien@gmail.com 2008-08-11 15:58:07 EDT --- This package doesn't build on koji for x86_64 from 0.9.2 to 0.9.3. I've contacted upstream. He is actually fixing that and will release 0.9.4 when done.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=456138
--- Comment #4 from Nicoleau Fabien nicoleau.fabien@gmail.com 2008-09-29 13:35:38 EDT --- Update to 0.9.5 : Spec URL: http://nicoleau.fabien.free.fr/rpms/SPECS/edb.spec SRPM URL: http://nicoleau.fabien.free.fr/rpms/srpms.fc9/edb-0.9.5-1.fc9.src.rpm
Rebuild under mock is OK. Rebuild on koji is OK : http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=850286
rpmlint output : [builder@FEDOBOX rpmbuild]$ rpmlint /home/builder/rpmbuild/SRPMS/edb-0.9.5-1.fc9.src.rpm /home/builder/rpmbuild/RPMS/i386/edb-0.9.5-1.fc9.i386.rpm /home/builder/rpmbuild/RPMS/i386/edb-plugins-0.9.5-1.fc9.i386.rpm /home/builder/rpmbuild/RPMS/i386/edb-debuginfo-0.9.5-1.fc9.i386.rpm 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. [builder@FEDOBOX rpmbuild]$
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=456138
--- Comment #5 from Nicoleau Fabien nicoleau.fabien@gmail.com 2008-11-16 14:22:44 EDT --- Update to 0.9.6 : Spec URL: http://nicoleau.fabien.free.fr/rpms/SPECS/edb.spec SRPM URL: http://nicoleau.fabien.free.fr/rpms/srpms.fc9/edb-0.9.6-1.fc9.src.rpm
Rebuild under mock is OK. Rebuild on koji is OK : http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=935319
rpmlint output : [builder@FEDOBOX rpmbuild]$ rpmlint /home/builder/rpmbuild/SRPMS/edb-0.9.6-1.fc9.src.rpm /home/builder/rpmbuild/RPMS/i386/edb-0.9.6-1.fc9.i386.rpm /home/builder/rpmbuild/RPMS/i386/edb-plugins-0.9.6-1.fc9.i386.rpm /home/builder/rpmbuild/RPMS/i386/edb-debuginfo-0.9.6-1.fc9.i386.rpm 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. [builder@FEDOBOX rpmbuild]$
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=456138
Lucian Langa cooly@gnome.eu.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |cooly@gnome.eu.org
--- Comment #6 from Lucian Langa cooly@gnome.eu.org 2008-11-22 13:21:20 EDT --- - license of this package should pe GPLv2+
- this is a GUI application without .desktop file.
- what's the purpose of edb-plugins ? As I can see edb main package cannot run without debugger core plugin. I you're going to provide a separate edb plugins package shouldn't that be optional ? I think you should separate in-core plugins from optional plugins (if it's even the case).
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=456138
--- Comment #7 from Nicoleau Fabien nicoleau.fabien@gmail.com 2008-11-22 20:38:31 EDT --- Thank you for your comment. Update : Spec URL: http://nicoleau.fabien.free.fr/rpms/SPECS/edb.spec SRPM URL: http://nicoleau.fabien.free.fr/rpms/srpms.fc9/edb-0.9.6-2.fc9.src.rpm
Changelog : - Licence fix - Add desktop file - Removed separate plugin package
I removed edb-plugins as there is no real interest.
Rebuild under mock is OK. Build on koji ij OK : http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=945577
Rpmlint output : [builder@FEDOBOX tmp]$ rpmlint edb-0.9.6-2.fc9.i386.rpm edb-debuginfo-0.9.6-2.fc9.i386.rpm edb-0.9.6-2.fc9.src.rpm 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=456138
Lucian Langa cooly@gnome.eu.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody@fedoraproject.org |cooly@gnome.eu.org Flag| |fedora-review?
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=456138
Lucian Langa cooly@gnome.eu.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #8 from Lucian Langa cooly@gnome.eu.org 2008-11-23 15:38:52 EDT --- OK source files match upstream: bf13f4ec695dd37bd01c4eff2db63ef9 debugger-0.9.6.tgz OK package meets naming and versioning guidelines. OK specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. OK summary is OK. OK description is OK. OK dist tag is present. OK build root is OK. OK license field matches the actual license. OK license is open source-compatible. OK license text included in package. OK BuildRequires are proper. OK compiler flags are appropriate. OK %clean is present. OK package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64). OK package installs properly. OK debuginfo package looks complete. OK rpmlint is silent. OK final provides and requires are sane: libAnalyzer.so()(64bit) libBinarySearcher.so()(64bit) libBookmarks.so()(64bit) libBreakpointManager.so()(64bit) libCheckVersion.so()(64bit) libDebuggerCore.so()(64bit) libDumpState.so()(64bit) libELFBinaryInfo.so()(64bit) libEnvironment.so()(64bit) libFunctionDB.so()(64bit) libFunctionFinder.so()(64bit) libHardwareBreakpoints.so()(64bit) libHeapAnalyzer.so()(64bit) libOpcodeSearcher.so()(64bit) libOpenFiles.so()(64bit) libReferences.so()(64bit) libStringSearcher.so()(64bit) libSymbolViewer.so()(64bit) edb = 0.9.6-2.fc10 edb(x86-64) = 0.9.6-2.fc10 = /bin/sh libQtCore.so.4()(64bit) libQtGui.so.4()(64bit) libQtNetwork.so.4()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) OK %check is not present. I was able to run application and debug a binary file N/A no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths. OK owns the directories it creates. OK doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. OK no duplicates in %files. OK file permissions are appropriate. N/A scriptlets present look OK N/A initscript looks OK. OK code, not content. OK documentation is small, so no -doc subpackage is necessary. OK %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. OK no headers. OK no pkgconfig files. OK no static libraries. OK no libtool .la files. OK this is a GUI application, desktop file OK
Suggestion: please see if you can provide an icon file for this package. (try upstream, or try to find a default one)
APPROVED.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=456138
Nicoleau Fabien nicoleau.fabien@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #9 from Nicoleau Fabien nicoleau.fabien@gmail.com 2008-11-23 16:12:05 EDT --- Thank you for the review Lucian. I'll ask upstream for an icon file.
New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: edb Short Description: A debugger based on the ptrace API and Qt4 Owners: eponyme Branches: F-8 F-9 F-10 InitialCC:
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=456138
Dennis Gilmore dennis@ausil.us changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+
--- Comment #10 from Dennis Gilmore dennis@ausil.us 2008-11-25 11:31:16 EDT --- cvs done
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=456138
--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2008-11-25 14:33:01 EDT --- edb-0.9.6-2.fc9 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 9. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/edb-0.9.6-2.fc9
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=456138
--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2008-11-25 14:34:09 EDT --- edb-0.9.6-2.fc8 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 8. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/edb-0.9.6-2.fc8
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=456138
--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2008-11-25 14:35:19 EDT --- edb-0.9.6-2.fc10 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 10. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/edb-0.9.6-2.fc10
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=456138
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |ON_QA
--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2008-11-26 01:15:42 EDT --- edb-0.9.6-2.fc8 has been pushed to the Fedora 8 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing-newkey update edb'. You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F8/FEDORA-2008-10266
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=456138
--- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2008-11-26 01:16:57 EDT --- edb-0.9.6-2.fc9 has been pushed to the Fedora 9 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing-newkey update edb'. You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F9/FEDORA-2008-10291
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=456138
--- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2008-11-26 01:17:00 EDT --- edb-0.9.6-2.fc10 has been pushed to the Fedora 10 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update edb'. You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/f10/FEDORA-2008-10293
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=456138
Lucian Langa cooly@gnome.eu.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |ASSIGNED Flag|fedora-review+, fedora-cvs+ |fedora-review-, fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #17 from Lucian Langa cooly@gnome.eu.org 2008-11-26 02:25:58 EDT --- There is a problem with this package name, edb already exists in fedora:
edb -- A database convenience library wrapped around BDB EDB is a database convenience library wrapped around the Berkeley DB 2.7.7 by Sleepycat Software. It is intended to make accessing database information portable, easy, fast and efficient.
cvs was already granted for this package, but it is conflicting with the above package.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=456138
--- Comment #18 from Nicoleau Fabien nicoleau.fabien@gmail.com 2008-11-26 06:24:54 EDT --- :( What can I do ? must I rename my package ?
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=456138
Dennis Gilmore dennis@ausil.us changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs-
--- Comment #19 from Dennis Gilmore dennis@ausil.us 2008-11-26 21:37:20 EDT --- since the package review is - cvs can not be done. please rerequest cvs when the review is sorted out
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=456138
Dennis Gilmore dennis@ausil.us changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |dennis@ausil.us Flag| |needinfo?(cooly@gnome.eu.or | |g)
--- Comment #20 from Dennis Gilmore dennis@ausil.us 2008-11-26 21:52:04 EDT --- I do not see any rpms with the name edb or anything in fedora providing /usr/bin/edb Lucian can you please give more info on what the conflict is? because i do not see it.
[root@athosian ~]# yum install /usr/bin/edb Setting up Install Process Parsing package install arguments No package /usr/bin/edb available. Nothing to do [root@athosian ~]# yum install /usr/sbin/edb Loaded plugins: refresh-packagekit Setting up Install Process Parsing package install arguments No package /usr/sbin/edb available. Nothing to do [root@athosian ~]# yum install edb Loaded plugins: refresh-packagekit Setting up Install Process Parsing package install arguments No package edb available. Nothing to do
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=456138
--- Comment #21 from manuel wolfshant wolfy@nobugconsulting.ro 2008-11-26 22:17:25 EDT --- The older edb was not included in fedora since version FC-6.
Compare http://cvs.fedoraproject.org/viewvc/rpms/edb/FC-3/edb.spec?revision=1.8&... with http://cvs.fedoraproject.org/viewvc/rpms/edb/devel/edb.spec?view=markup
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=456138
Dennis Gilmore dgilmore@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |dgilmore@redhat.com
--- Comment #22 from Dennis Gilmore dgilmore@redhat.com 2008-11-26 22:44:53 EDT --- judging by http://cvs.fedoraproject.org/viewvc/rpms/edb/ the old package has not been in fedora since Fedora Core 5 in which case i think the new package is ok.
We can always bring it up with FESCo if people disagree with that.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=456138
--- Comment #23 from manuel wolfshant wolfy@nobugconsulting.ro 2008-11-26 22:48:41 EDT --- It's a bit confusing to have the same name refer to two completely different applications, depending on which version of the distribution you are. Especially as the older application has not been formally abandoned / orphaned / whatever.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=456138
--- Comment #24 from Dennis Gilmore dgilmore@redhat.com 2008-11-26 23:18:42 EDT --- https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/packages/name/edb says that its orphaned and its not been in fedora since FC-5 It was not marked as dead in cvs but has not had a branch which means it did not exist in the release. sure someone updating from FC-5 may be surprised. I still think that it will be ok.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=456138
--- Comment #25 from manuel wolfshant wolfy@nobugconsulting.ro 2008-11-26 23:27:23 EDT --- Indeed, I have not noticed the "orphan" status. For the record, I am fine with the current situation. But for the sake of the discussion, let's presume I want to resurrect the old program. Now what ?
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=456138
--- Comment #26 from manuel wolfshant wolfy@nobugconsulting.ro 2008-11-26 23:30:24 EDT --- And in any case, IF the new application retains the "edb" name, the description from https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/packages/name/edb must be fixed, as currently it references the older application.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=456138
Dennis Gilmore dennis@ausil.us changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|needinfo?(cooly@gnome.eu.or | |g) |
--- Comment #27 from Dennis Gilmore dennis@ausil.us 2008-11-26 23:34:15 EDT --- If someone was to resurrect it since its not been in fedora for as long as it has been out it would need a new review. At which point it could be named bdb-edb or db4-edb or something else. the harder part is that the binaries will need renaming also. since im assuming both would provide /usr/bin/edb the same is true of any upstream projects that have clashing names.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=456138
Lucian Langa cooly@gnome.eu.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review- |fedora-review+
--- Comment #28 from Lucian Langa cooly@gnome.eu.org 2008-11-27 00:58:45 EDT --- Thanks for sorting this out. The description in pkgdb still points to old package. I am going to close this review as APPROVED.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=456138
--- Comment #29 from Nicoleau Fabien nicoleau.fabien@gmail.com 2008-11-28 08:48:56 EDT --- Hi, As cvs and build have already been done, must I ask again a cvs request ? How can I change summary in pkgdb page ?
Thx
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=456138
Dennis Gilmore dennis@ausil.us changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC|dgilmore@redhat.com | Flag|fedora-cvs- |fedora-cvs+
--- Comment #30 from Dennis Gilmore dennis@ausil.us 2008-11-28 08:57:14 EDT --- im setting cvs back to + and im told that the summary and description in pkgdb will automatically be fixed when the package hits rawhide.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=456138
Lucian Langa cooly@gnome.eu.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |NEXTRELEASE
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=456138
--- Comment #31 from Nicoleau Fabien nicoleau.fabien@gmail.com 2008-11-30 18:01:46 EDT --- Perhaps I've build edb for rawhide "to early". Summary and description are still the old ones. May be it will change when I'll build an update for rawhide.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=456138
--- Comment #32 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2008-12-08 08:01:20 EDT --- edb-0.9.6-2.fc8 has been pushed to the Fedora 8 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=456138
--- Comment #33 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2008-12-08 08:01:35 EDT --- edb-0.9.6-2.fc9 has been pushed to the Fedora 9 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=456138
--- Comment #34 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2008-12-08 08:03:20 EDT --- edb-0.9.6-2.fc10 has been pushed to the Fedora 10 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org