devel November 2011

devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

268 participants
242 discussions

Anyone interested in abi-compatibility-checker?
by Richard Shaw 10 Jan '12

10 Jan '12

I was looking for a way to check abi compatibility for a package I maintain that does not control API/ABI compatibility and found this: http://forge.ispras.ru/projects/abi-compliance-checker I already have it packaged for my own use so I thought I'd check to see if anyone else is interested in it, and if so, if someone will want to review it. Thanks, Richard

6 11

PHP 5.4 as Fedora 17 feature ?
by Remi Collet 29 Dec '11

29 Dec '11

PHP 5.4 enter RC stage So, I'm working to upgrade all the PHP stack (for now in my testing repo) I think PHP 5.4.0 (finale/stable) will be available for fedora 17, so I plan to update it (and all C extension before fedora 17 feature freeze) Do you think I should submit a feature proposal ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/Policy Of course this will requires to test all web app. available in the repository. Regards, Remi.

3 7

(re)introducing - fedora-review - tool to help with package reviews
by Stanislav Ochotnicky 19 Dec '11

19 Dec '11

Hello fellow devs, I am sure quite a few of you have done some reviews and thought "Hey, a,b,c and d could be automated. For E I could use some more information that can be automatically gathered". Some of you even wrote your own tools to do some of these things. Yet there is no unified tool, nor format for package reviews. There are more reasons, but I guess biggest one is there are just too many guidelines and there is probably no one who knows all of them. So few of us got together and hopefully created something that can be used by everyone. fedora-review[1] is now in updates-testing. It provides several checks: 66 generic tests (licensing, md5sum sources, bundling, etc.) 9 c/c++ specific checks (static libs, ldconfig, headers, rpath etc.) 13 java specific checks (javadoc, depmaps, jpackage-utils reqs) 8 R specific checks There are still many more checks waiting to be written. I'd like to see Perl, Python and Ruby checks, though I am not *that* familiar with their guidelines. I think the important thing here is that checks can be written in basically any language. We have simple JSON api[2] using stdin/stdout for communication. There is an example external plugin in documentation in perl and shell (though that's just mock-check). Our goal is for each language SIG (or other specific package group) to maintain their own checks together with their guidelines. * How you can help * - Tell us what checks are missing - Tell us if you think checks are doing it wrong - Create new checks (in language of your choice - we have JSON api) - do this even if the test cannot be automated. At least it will appear on the checklist for your packages! - Any ideas, bugreports etc will be much appreciated [1] https://fedorahosted.org/FedoraReview [2] https://fedorahosted.org/FedoraReview/browser/api/README -- Stanislav Ochotnicky <sochotnicky(a)redhat.com> Software Engineer - Base Operating Systems Brno PGP: 7B087241 Red Hat Inc. http://cz.redhat.com

8 11

Systemd unit file alias question
by Richard Shaw 15 Dec '11

15 Dec '11

I'm working on improving how akmods are built and had an idea[1] I need input/confirmation on. Instead of the akmods packaging assuming when it needs to run, why can't each akmod driver package provide it's own unit file? Since the service would run as type "oneshot", am I correct in assuming that no matter how many times it's started, it will only start for real on the first (earliest) occurrence? My idea is that each akmod driver package would provide a service file with the same name as the package but include an alias to "akmods.service". What's the consequences of multiple unit files claiming the same alias? Is this safe? Thanks, Richard [1] https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1712#c16

2 1

Orphaning techtalk-pse
by Ian Weller 14 Dec '11

14 Dec '11

I am orphaning the techtalk-pse package because the Gtk2::MozEmbed perl module will no longer be maintained in Fedora because gtkmozembed support has been removed from xulrunner. If upstream (or anybody) has the time to work on techtalk-pse and get it working with something like Gtk2::WebKit, I'm glad to pick up package maintenance again. (I would, but my perl skills go as far as running programs.) -- Ian Weller <ian(a)ianweller.org> _ \/"/_ All Hail the Beefy Miracle! /_/ beefymiracle.org \ \

2 2

gdbm license change
by Honza Horak 13 Dec '11

13 Dec '11

Hi, GNU database indexing library (gdbm) has changed its license to GPLv3+. Cheers, Honza

11 19

grub2 and setting crashkernel kernel argument
by Roman Rakus 13 Dec '11

13 Dec '11

How are fedora with grub2 users supposed to set up crashkernel kernel argument? Or even any argument? Writing own script for it? I'm asking because I'm maintaining system-config-kdump and I'm not sure how to ensure this. RR

7 10

orphaning gdk-pixbuf
by Kevin Fenzi 09 Dec '11

09 Dec '11

Greetings. I just orphaned gdk-pixbuf in pkgdb. It failed the mass rebuild, not much left that depends on it, and nothing I need. ;) % repoquery --source --whatrequires gdk-pixbuf gdk-pixbuf-0.22.0-38.fc12.src.rpm gdk-pixbuf-0.22.0-38.fc12.src.rpm gdk-pixbuf-0.22.0-38.fc12.src.rpm gdk-pixbuf-0.22.0-38.fc12.src.rpm soundtracker-0.6.8-8.fc12.src.rpm xosd-2.2.14-13.fc12.src.rpm So, if anyone really really really wants to keep it alive, feel free to take it and fix it so it builds and works. ;) kevin

6 8

A software center for Fedora
by Giovanni Campagna 08 Dec '11

08 Dec '11

As promised in my previous mail, here is what I find that's lacking in Fedora, compared to the direct competition (Ubuntu, Debian, OpenSuse), and recently even some proprietary systems: we don't have an application installer. While we do have two nice UIs (gpk-application and apper) for package management, having to deal with packages, with no icons and no translations is not appropriate for end users. Instead, I think it would be appriopriate to follow the Ubuntu path and recognize the applications from .desktop files, because that is what will end up in the app launcher. Since this is free software, we already have a complete software center available, straight from launchpad.net/software-center. (Actually, it doesn't yet work on Fedora, partly because of unmet dependencies, but those are just technical bugs, and I don't think it would be difficult to have something running soon) What is missing, though, is the data, representing the applications available in fedora repositories. Long long ago (march 2009), a package was proposed for inclusion, which contained application data, in a format understood by software-center, for fedora at that time. This package was initially rejected, then one year later FESCo ruled that it did not actually break packaging guidelines, yet it disappeared. Back to present, it's almost 2012. I'm here and I want to do whatever is required, at all layers, to ensure that application data is correctly generated, updated, and downloaded, at all times and for all users. This may involve changes in our repository infrastructure, in yum, packagekit and maybe in other places as well. I think this is specifically a Fedora feature, as it involves the whole distribution and touches many groups at the same time, which explains why I proposed it here instead of anywhere else. If you think it's worth it, I'd like to propose it as an official Fedora 17 Feature, and I'll happily write the wiki page. I hope that some people from the relevant group will point me to the right place (perhaps starting from what happened to fedora-app-install...), and I hope you like the idea in general. Giovanni

29 73

Changing kernel API / Breaking VirtualBox - update criteria violation?
by Till Maas 08 Dec '11

08 Dec '11

Hi, a recent kernel update[0] broke Fedora's ability to be a VirtualBox host, because asm/amd_iommu.h was removed. The removal of the file was noticed during testing, but it seems nobody noticed that this affects VirtualBox. Is this kind of change sanctioned by the current update criteria? Kind regards Till [0] https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2011-15856/kernel-2.6.41.1-1…

24 67

Jump to page:

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

devel November 2011