[colord] Add conflict on icc-profiles-openicc
by ku.b-mal
Hello,
I am the upstream maintainer of a number of colour management packages
including icc-profiles-openicc and new to this list. Due to the
speciality of matters, I jump in here.
Reason for my write:
[colord] Add conflict on icc-profiles-openicc :
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/scm-commits/Week-of-Mon-2013120...
Problem:
The above Conflict tag breaks several packages, which rely on
icc-profiles-openicc, namely oyranos and depending graphics software.
We have no bug reports upstream, or in openSUSE, where I maintain many
colour management packages, nor see I such in Fedora in order to work
upstream to fix anything. In the past I was able to fix several issues
including those arrised by openSUSE, Fedora, Debian, Gentoo and other
distro packagers.
The Conflict tag causes now uncertaincy to packagers and forces me to
take from my development time on bug reports, finding out how packaging
works in Fedora etc.
Request:
remove the RPM spec Conflict tag immediately as it misuses the GNOME
requirement for colord to block Oyranos from Fedora without fixable
reasoning.
Bug reports:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1069672
(https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1042655)
Background:
colord author Richard Hughes sees himself as a competitor to the elder
Oyranos project, which helped paving the way for linux color management.
Not sure why he continues to repeat FUD[1] all over the place regarding
Oyranos. See the open bug as an example for that. But, as you might
imagine, that feels unfriendly.
kind regards and sorry for the noice
Kai-Uwe
--
www.oyranos.org
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear,_uncertainty_and_doubt
5 years, 1 month
Re: [Fedora-packaging] How to calculate priority for missing tests or %check
by Alexander Todorov
На 27.02.2014 21:31, Aleksandar Kurtakov написа:
> I have similar feelings as ajax. It's not whether it's useless of treasure. If someone says "give me commit rights as I want to make tests build|fix url|fix formatting|improve BRs|etc. in package A you're maintainer" I would be more than happy to welcome him/her as co-maintainer but just showing me such things as something to be improved is not something that I would hurry to even look at as I'm aware of way more problems that affect even runtime behaviour of the package and until these more important things get fixed the rest is smth that the one identifing should come with a fix otherwise it will stay for the bright future when we have endless time and resources.
>
So you mean somewhere around Fedora 100 when we enter the Singularity :).
>>>> On 27.02.2014 17:24, Adam Jackson wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 2014-02-27 at 16:03 +0200, Alexander Todorov wrote:
>>>> ...
>>>>>> Btw the URL field in the spec file should be updated to
>>>>>> http://cgit.freedesktop.org/xorg/lib/libpciaccess/
>>>>>
>>>>> Oh yes, another useless rpm feature, I'll be sure to make that my top
>>>>> priority.
>>>>
Indeed I run a small test and from 2574 RPMs on the source DVD there is around
40% of "something different than HTTP 200 OK".
The majority (30%) are responses in the 3XX range and only less than 10% are
actual errors (4XX, 5XX, missing URLs or connection errors).
I'm not sure what purpose does the URL field serve nowadays but it looks like it
can be removed from the spec file (and RPM for that matter)!
--
Alex
5 years, 1 month
Summary/Minutes from today's FPC Meeting (2014-02-27 17:00 - 18:50 UTC)
by James Antill
=============================================
#fedora-meeting-1: Fedora Packaging Committee
=============================================
Meeting started by spot at 17:03:44 UTC. The full logs are available at
http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2014-02-27/fpc.2014-02-...
.
Meeting summary
---------------
* Software collections in Fedora
(https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/339) (spot, 17:06:57)
* Go Packaging Draft - https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/382 (spot,
17:13:06)
* workarounds for rpm symlink <-> directory issue -
https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/385 (spot, 17:14:18)
* LINK:
https://fedoraproject.org/w/index.php?title=User:Patches/PackagingDrafts/...
(spot, 17:15:05)
* Recommend %autosetup over %setup -
https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/388 (spot, 17:27:47)
* LINK: http://www.rpm.org/wiki/PackagerDocs/Autosetup has the meat
(spot, 17:32:57)
* ACTION: spot's mini-draft approved (+1:7, 0:1, -1:0) (spot,
17:43:54)
* Exception for bundled libs in icecat -
https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/391 (spot, 17:45:32)
* LINK: https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/472#comment:16
(abadger1999, 17:48:08)
* LINK: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1049889 => no
comment (RemiFedora, 18:03:31)
* icecat bundling tabled for this week as there's both questions of
what we should be doing and fairness wrt firefox. (abadger1999,
18:09:10)
* #393 New Packaging Guidelines: Drupal 7 (abadger1999, 18:09:28)
* LINK: https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/393 (abadger1999,
18:09:34)
* Drupal7 guidelines approved with the virtual provides requirement
changed to MUST (+1:6, 0:0, -1:0) (abadger1999, 18:28:49)
* #394 Outdated guideline about Requires(foo,bar) syntax
(abadger1999, 18:28:51)
* LINK: https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/394 (abadger1999,
18:28:59)
* Remove the Scriptlets requirements section from the Guidelines and
add them to the epel guidelines for EL5 (+1:5, 0:0, -1:0)
(abadger1999, 18:31:21)
* #395 Mono guidelines include hard-coded library paths
(abadger1999, 18:31:53)
* LINK: https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/395 (abadger1999,
18:31:58)
* Mono path macros approved with the folowing changes: prepend with an
underscore and use %{_prefix} (+1:5, 0:0, -1:0) (abadger1999,
18:37:20)
* #396 Reserve static UID/GID for OpenStack ironic daemon
(abadger1999, 18:37:34)
* LINK: https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/396 (abadger1999,
18:37:39)
* #397 Please, choose an ID number for a new group called "input"
(abadger1999, 18:39:01)
* LINK: https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/397 (abadger1999,
18:39:07)
* Open floor (abadger1999, 18:50:19)
Meeting ended at 18:52:30 UTC.
Action Items
------------
* spot's mini-draft approved (+1:7, 0:1, -1:0)
Action Items, by person
-----------------------
* spot
* spot's mini-draft approved (+1:7, 0:1, -1:0)
* **UNASSIGNED**
* (none)
People Present (lines said)
---------------------------
* spot (96)
* abadger1999 (92)
* geppetto (51)
* tibbs|w (32)
* RemiFedora (24)
* Rathann (22)
* limburgher (9)
* SmootherFrOgZ (7)
* zodbot (6)
* willb (5)
* tstclair (2)
* nirik (2)
Generated by `MeetBot`_ 0.1.4
.. _`MeetBot`: http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot
5 years, 1 month
Re: [Fedora-packaging] Packages with missing %check
by Alexander Todorov
На 26.02.2014 15:56, David Howells написа:
> Alexander Todorov <atodorov(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>
>> How about making %check a packaging requirement in all cases - run tests or
>> add a comment explaining why not, how to run them (e.g. make test) or why
>> there are no tests for this package.
>
> Does %check install the package and run the tests as root? For the keyutils
> package that I maintain, this would be a requirement to be able to run the
> testsuite because:
>
> (1) There are certain operations that cannot be tested if you're not root.
>
> (2) The kernel must be able to upcall to executables installed by the rpm.
>
> I imagine this applies to some other packages also.
>
I does, but not sure to how many. %check is executed during rpmbuild time right
after %build so limitations apply.
--
Alex
5 years, 1 month
Re: [Fedora-packaging] Packages with missing %check
by Richard W.M. Jones
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 01:56:22PM +0000, David Howells wrote:
> Alexander Todorov <atodorov(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>
> > How about making %check a packaging requirement in all cases - run tests or
> > add a comment explaining why not, how to run them (e.g. make test) or why
> > there are no tests for this package.
>
> Does %check install the package and run the tests as root?
No, of course not.
> For the keyutils
> package that I maintain, this would be a requirement to be able to run the
> testsuite because:
>
> (1) There are certain operations that cannot be tested if you're not root.
>
> (2) The kernel must be able to upcall to executables installed by the rpm.
>
> I imagine this applies to some other packages also.
You can throw up a VM to test this, if you really wanted to do it in
%check. libguestfs does this. However it's not especially easy, and
it's fairly ugly.
For the sorts of tests you are talking about it's much better to test
the final RPM installed in a full OS environment. That is what (I
hope) Taskotron is trying to do. Also what Colin is doing with his
ostree testing effort.
Rich.
--
Richard Jones, Virtualization Group, Red Hat http://people.redhat.com/~rjones
Fedora Windows cross-compiler. Compile Windows programs, test, and
build Windows installers. Over 100 libraries supported.
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/MinGW
5 years, 1 month
Lightening Ekiga
by Mircea Sava
Hi!
Is it possible to have a lite version of ekiga, w.o. gnome integration?
It would be much appreciated.
5 years, 1 month
