Hi, Fedorans. Please be informed that this week is Fedora Graphics Test
Week. Tuesday 2011-02-22 is Nouveau Test Day [1], Wednesday 2011-02-23
is Radeon Test Day [2] and Thursday 2011-02-24 is Intel (graphics) Test
Day [3].
Testing is very easy and can be done entirely with a live image, there's
no need to install F15 or Rawhide; full instructions are available on
the Wiki pages. QA folks and graphics developers will be in
#fedora-test-day during the events. These test days are super-important
this release because we'll be checking out the support for GNOME Shell,
one of the major features of F15; we really need to get a good idea of
the state of hardware support for the Shell, so PLEASE do come out and
help test if you have any spare time this week! Also please help spread
the word anywhere you can - your local enthusiast community, any news
websites you know, particularly ones in non-English languages (as I'm
not great at covering those).
There's a longer write-up on my blog [4]. Please get in touch with me
directly or the test mailing list if you have any questions or
suggestions. Thanks!
[1] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Day:2011-02-22_Nouveau
[2] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Day:2011-02-23_Radeon
[3] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Day:2011-02-24_Intel
[4] http://www.happyassassin.net/2011/02/20/its-graphics-test-week-again/
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org
http://www.happyassassin.net
Hi folks,
I'm glad to announce that Planet Edited is up!
Here some bits from the wiki page available at [1]:
"Planet Edited was born having one idea in mind: setting up
a blog aggregator software that should contain only Fedora-related material and posts.
The adjective edited came from the fact that this planet will be maintained and edited
by a group of people (the editors), that will make sure appropriate and relevant content
gets posted."
Edited is now available at the following URL [2]. It obviously contain no feeds at the
moment, but we are now ready to make it rock by adding some fresh new content.
Thanks in advance and see you on Edited!
Andrea
[1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Planet_Edited
[2] http://planet.fedoraproject.org/edited
Hey guys gals and other hackerfolk!
Google's Summer of Code is coming up ever so close. We have 20 days until the
org application opens up, and we need a *LOT* more ideas if we are going to
have any hope of being accepted. I know there are a lot of awesome ideas out
there in the community, we just need folks to step up and tell us about them.
It's free labour, and a great chance to attract new Fedora contributors.
So, folks, go add ideas to the Ideas page at:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Summer_coding_ideas_for_2011
Best!
Ryan Rix
--
Ryan Rix
== http://hackersramblings.wordpress.com | http://rix.si/ ==
== http://rix.si/page/contact/ if you need a word ==
Various SSL keys are aging out so we will be updating them before anyone
gets a <This CERT is not valid.> page.
The first server to be updated will be fedorahosted.org.
The old certificate came from Equifax, was a 1024 bit key and had the
fingerprint:
SHA1 Fingerprint=CC:64:67:BE:90:50:79:ED:23:E8:C1:18:02:AB:AC:83:88:FC:6C:D8
The new certificate is issued by GeoTrust, Inc and is a 4096 bit key
with the fingerprint:
SHA1 Fingerprint=D1:54:82:77:77:F9:11:DF:E0:B1:14:37:B9:36:E2:09:20:B6:54:1D
Please report any problems with these certificates to
admin(a)fedoraproject.org
Stephen Smoogen
* interim Infrastructure Chief Coffee Officer
Here are the latest set of changes to the Fedora Packaging Guidelines:
---
The rules for substituting dots with dashes in package names have been
clarified to make explicit that they apply to python modules and that
they do not apply to version numbers in compat libraries.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines
---
Many implementations of md5 originate in a program and then end up
copied to other programs with compatible license terms. These
implementations have been granted a bundling exception. The usual
requirement to set a Virtual Provides: if bundling are in effect and
have some special notes due to the many implementations out there. Note
that copying the implementation from a library is not covered under this
exception.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:No_Bundled_Libraries#Packages_gran…
---
rpm and yum treat a dependency on a package of the form Requires: foo as
being fulfilled by any available package foo, regardless of arch. On
multilib architectures, this means that there are often two packages
with the same name: one for each of the multilib arches. When yum is
asked to satisfy a dependency for that package name it could pull in the
package for the wrong arch. This happens when the correct architecture
is not available to yum. That might be the case if, due to some
malfunction, the Fedora repositories are out of synch. It can also
happen if a user has installed a package that is treated as "newer" than
the corresponding package in the currently enabled set of repositories;
in attempting to resolve otherwise-unresolvable dependency chains, yum
may decide to pull in the dependency chain for a different arch.
In some situations, this is not a problem, but there are some situations
where it does matter:
* A library that is explicitly Required (example a dlopen'd library)
* The dependency from one -devel packages that is not noarch to
another -devel package.
* A non-noarch subpackage's dependency on its main package or another
subpackage (e.g., libfoo-devel depends on libfoo, or fooapp-plugins
depends on foo-app).
The Packaging Guidelines (and Naming Guidelines) have been amended to
reflect that %{?_isa} must be used for Explicit Requires and Provides
that match those situations.
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Requireshttp://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Explicit_Requireshttp://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Requiring_Base_Packagehttps://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Renaming.2Freplac…
---
Previously, there was a change made to the Documentation guidelines
which stated that:
If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the
runtime of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the
program must run properly if it is not present.
In addition, %doc files must not have executable permissions.
This has been revised to:
Files marked as documentation must not cause the package to pull in
more dependencies than it would without the documentation. One simple
way to ensure this is to remove all executable permissions from %doc
files (chmod -x).
Also, if a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the
runtime of the packaged application(s). To summarize: If it is in
%doc, the included programs must run properly if it is not present.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Documentation
---
A new section has been added to the Packaging Guidelines concerning test
suites included with source code:
If the source code of the package provides a test suite, it should be
executed in the %check section, whenever it is practical to do so.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Test_Suites
---
A new section has been added to the Packaging Guidelines concerning the
proper packaging of tmpfiles.d configurations and directories:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Tmpfiles.d
---
These guidelines (and changes) were approved by the Fedora Packaging
Committee (FPC).
Many thanks to Jochen Schmitt 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:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Committee#GuidelineChangeProcedure
Thanks,
~spot