1:54 p.m.
The nightly composes for spins had a noticeable jump in size between
the 13th and 14th builds.
It looks like these bumps have put the broffice and xfce spins over their
target sizes (assuming they are targeting 703 MiB CDs).
6:05 p.m.
On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 7:54 PM, Bruno Wolff III <bruno(a)wolff.to> wrote:
The nightly composes for spins had a noticeable jump in size between
the 13th and 14th builds.
It looks like these bumps have put the broffice and xfce spins over their
target sizes (assuming they are targeting 703 MiB CDs).
yes, that's because of the fedora-logos package which adds some stupid
deps which ultimately pulls in perl! Complete insanity, why a "logos"
package needs to depend on any form of binary program is beyond me and
whoever made that decision needs to go and find a better supplier for
their crack.
</rant>
Peter
6:15 p.m.
On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 00:05:05 +0100,
Peter Robinson <pbrobinson(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 7:54 PM, Bruno Wolff III
<bruno(a)wolff.to> wrote:
> The nightly composes for spins had a noticeable jump in size between
> the 13th and 14th builds.
>
> It looks like these bumps have put the broffice and xfce spins over their
> target sizes (assuming they are targeting 703 MiB CDs).
yes, that's because of the fedora-logos package which adds some stupid
deps which ultimately pulls in perl! Complete insanity, why a "logos"
package needs to depend on any form of binary program is beyond me and
whoever made that decision needs to go and find a better supplier for
their crack.
I thought I had checked for that in the logs, but didn't see perl getting
installed. If the problem is still there tomorrow, I'll look more carefully.
There was a logos update today that might fix that issue.
6:23 p.m.
On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 12:15 AM, Bruno Wolff III <bruno(a)wolff.to> wrote:
On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 00:05:05 +0100,
Peter Robinson <pbrobinson(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 7:54 PM, Bruno Wolff III <bruno(a)wolff.to> wrote:
> > The nightly composes for spins had a noticeable jump in size between
> > the 13th and 14th builds.
> >
> > It looks like these bumps have put the broffice and xfce spins over their
> > target sizes (assuming they are targeting 703 MiB CDs).
>
> yes, that's because of the fedora-logos package which adds some stupid
> deps which ultimately pulls in perl! Complete insanity, why a "logos"
> package needs to depend on any form of binary program is beyond me and
> whoever made that decision needs to go and find a better supplier for
> their crack.
I thought I had checked for that in the logs, but didn't see perl getting
installed. If the problem is still there tomorrow, I'll look more carefully.
There was a logos update today that might fix that issue.
Its been fixed in an update that has been submitted in the last couple
of hours so hopefully that bit is fixed. So it might be some other
crack smoking person :-|
Peter
6:44 p.m.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 10/15/2010 04:05 PM, Peter Robinson wrote:
yes, that's because of the fedora-logos package which adds some
stupid
deps which ultimately pulls in perl!
That's because the fedora-logos package had a conversion script shipped
with it that needed net-pbm to run. It has been silently broken for a
while. Lets ratchet down the language a bit k?
- --
Jesse Keating
Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature!
identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iEYEARECAAYFAky451EACgkQ4v2HLvE71NVOygCfQwzrQE8n3qS2VpxAeM43gP9G
Tv8An2Mur0EN8GPNVHzKmea0BcaeoMFB
=pbiY
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
6:48 p.m.
On Sat, 16 Oct 2010 00:05:05 +0100
Peter Robinson <pbrobinson(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 7:54 PM, Bruno Wolff III
<bruno(a)wolff.to>
wrote:
> The nightly composes for spins had a noticeable jump in size between
> the 13th and 14th builds.
>
> It looks like these bumps have put the broffice and xfce spins over
> their target sizes (assuming they are targeting 703 MiB CDs).
yes, that's because of the fedora-logos package which adds some stupid
deps which ultimately pulls in perl! Complete insanity, why a "logos"
package needs to depend on any form of binary program is beyond me and
whoever made that decision needs to go and find a better supplier for
their crack.
</rant>
The perl dep isn't the problem for xfce, this is:
% ls -lah laughlin-backgrounds-gnome-13.92.0-1.fc14.noarch.rpm
-rw-r--r-- 2 537 537 4.3K Sep 14 20:16
laughlin-backgrounds-gnome-13.92.0-1.fc14.noarch.rpm
% ls -lah laughlin-backgrounds-gnome-14.0.0-1.fc14.noarch.rpm
-rw-r--r-- 2 537 537 23M Oct 13 22:31 laughlin-backgrounds-gnome-14.0.0-1.fc14.noarch.rpm
+23MB for everyone. :(
I guess I get to figure out how to remove that... but it seems to be
pulled in by various deps. ;(
kevin
8:02 p.m.
Em Sex, 2010-10-15 às 17:48 -0600, Kevin Fenzi escreveu:
The perl dep isn't the problem for xfce, this is:
% ls -lah laughlin-backgrounds-gnome-13.92.0-1.fc14.noarch.rpm
-rw-r--r-- 2 537 537 4.3K Sep 14 20:16
laughlin-backgrounds-gnome-13.92.0-1.fc14.noarch.rpm
% ls -lah laughlin-backgrounds-gnome-14.0.0-1.fc14.noarch.rpm
-rw-r--r-- 2 537 537 23M Oct 13 22:31
laughlin-backgrounds-gnome-14.0.0-1.fc14.noarch.rpm
+23MB for everyone. :(
I guess I get to figure out how to remove that... but it seems to be
pulled in by various deps. ;(
It looks like laughlin-backgrounds-single would be enough for the spins.
If we aren't able to remove that we have to remove something else, but
maybe this is a packaging bug. I don't see the point in include all
these wallpapers.
Regards,
--
Igor Pires Soares
Fedora I18N/L10N QA
Fedora Ambassador (Brazil)
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Igor
8:14 a.m.
On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 22:02:45 -0300,
Igor Pires Soares <igorsoares(a)gmail.com> wrote:
It looks like laughlin-backgrounds-single would be enough for the spins.
If we aren't able to remove that we have to remove something else, but
maybe this is a packaging bug. I don't see the point in include all
these wallpapers.
It seems like at the very least one should be able to use one that provides
just one background. So that spins trying to fit small sizes can do so.
We may end up needing to talk to design team about this depending on what
we find out about the dependencies.
10:28 a.m.
On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 22:02:45 -0300,
Igor Pires Soares <igorsoares(a)gmail.com> wrote:
It looks like laughlin-backgrounds-single would be enough for the spins.
If we aren't able to remove that we have to remove something else, but
maybe this is a packaging bug. I don't see the point in include all
these wallpapers.
I think we can do that without too much trouble. There is some followup
going on on the desktop list.
It looks like making laughlin-backgrounds-single provide
system-backgrounds-gnome instead of laughlin-backgrounds-gnome providing
it, and adjusting ks files will get the right stuff on the media.
There aren't any file dependencies that I could find. So this should
fix things.
There might be a comp groups issue for people doing installs. I'll start
looking for that while waiting for consensus on a plan.
We are going to need proven tester help as these are crit path packages.
4:41 p.m.
On Sat, 16 Oct 2010 10:28:46 -0500
Bruno Wolff III <bruno(a)wolff.to> wrote:
On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 22:02:45 -0300,
Igor Pires Soares <igorsoares(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> It looks like laughlin-backgrounds-single would be enough for the
> spins. If we aren't able to remove that we have to remove something
> else, but maybe this is a packaging bug. I don't see the point in
> include all these wallpapers.
I think we can do that without too much trouble. There is some
followup going on on the desktop list.
It looks like making laughlin-backgrounds-single provide
system-backgrounds-gnome instead of laughlin-backgrounds-gnome
providing it, and adjusting ks files will get the right stuff on the
media. There aren't any file dependencies that I could find. So this
should fix things.
There might be a comp groups issue for people doing installs. I'll
start looking for that while waiting for consensus on a plan.
We are going to need proven tester help as these are crit path
packages.
Yeah, this seems reasonable to me.
gdm pulls in this on Xfce, as well as cheese and a few other things, so
it would be hard to remove from that end.
Moving the provides, adjusting the ks files and adding to comps seems
good to me.
kevin
8:59 p.m.
On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 15:41:22 -0600,
Kevin Fenzi <kevin(a)scrye.com> wrote:
Moving the provides, adjusting the ks files and adding to comps seems
good to me.
Unless we can do something tricky this will end up not making the time of
day background the default for people that have it. Some of the desktop
guys aren't happy about that. I don't think their suggestion of conflicting
versions of the background images is a good idea.
So probably we either need to undo the change or modify it so it just
provides the time of day background as optional, not the default.
9:34 p.m.
On Sat, 16 Oct 2010 20:59:08 -0500
Bruno Wolff III <bruno(a)wolff.to> wrote:
On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 15:41:22 -0600,
Kevin Fenzi <kevin(a)scrye.com> wrote:
>
> Moving the provides, adjusting the ks files and adding to comps
> seems good to me.
Unless we can do something tricky this will end up not making the
time of day background the default for people that have it. Some of
the desktop guys aren't happy about that. I don't think their
suggestion of conflicting versions of the background images is a good
idea.
Yeah, conflicts are bad. ;(
So probably we either need to undo the change or modify it so it
just
provides the time of day background as optional, not the default.
Yeah, not sure whats the best way forward. ;(
kevin
7:45 a.m.
On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 13:54:30 -0500,
Bruno Wolff III <bruno(a)wolff.to> wrote:
The nightly composes for spins had a noticeable jump in size between
the 13th and 14th builds.
It looks like these bumps have put the broffice and xfce spins over their
target sizes (assuming they are targeting 703 MiB CDs).
Desktop has provided an update that should deal with the animated images
being mandatory. You can test it and give feedback at:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/laughlin-backgrounds-14.1.0-1.fc14
I changed the live desktop and broffice.org ks files so that live desktop
based spins other than broffice should include and use the animated
background by default. This needs testing once a nightly compose has been
done after the laughlin-backgrounds is in stable.
Desktop may also want to make a comps change. In theory the above stuff
should work the same if that happens. But we would want to test again
if that change happens after the first round of testing. I believe the
comps change is desired so that the animated background gets included
by default in installs from the install image (and actually gets on
the install image).
10:17 a.m.
Em Dom, 2010-10-17 às 07:45 -0500, Bruno Wolff III escreveu:
On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 13:54:30 -0500,
Bruno Wolff III <bruno(a)wolff.to> wrote:
> The nightly composes for spins had a noticeable jump in size between
> the 13th and 14th builds.
>
> It looks like these bumps have put the broffice and xfce spins over their
> target sizes (assuming they are targeting 703 MiB CDs).
Desktop has provided an update that should deal with the animated images
being mandatory. You can test it and give feedback at:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/laughlin-backgrounds-14.1.0-1.fc14
I changed the live desktop and broffice.org ks files so that live desktop
based spins other than broffice should include and use the animated
background by default. This needs testing once a nightly compose has been
done after the laughlin-backgrounds is in stable.
Thanks for that Bruno. I will test the changes in BrOffice.org spin as
soon as laughlin-backgrounds hits stable.
--
Igor Pires Soares
Fedora I18N/L10N QA
Fedora Ambassador (Brazil)
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Igor
4939
days inactive
4941
days old
13 comments
5 participants
participants (5)
-
Bruno Wolff III -
Igor Pires Soares -
Jesse Keating -
Kevin Fenzi -
Peter Robinson