devel October 2008

devel@lists.stg.fedoraproject.org

330 participants
322 discussions

Summary of the 2008-10-21 Packaging Committee meeting
by Jason L Tibbitts III 04 Jan '09

04 Jan '09

Meeting minutes and full logs of the 2008-10-21 FPC meeting are online: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Minutes http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Minutes/20081021 Issues pending FESCo ratification: * Eclipse plugin guideline modification ** Reported on-list; archive is at https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-packaging/2008-October/msg00121.html ** These tweak the guidelines to fix a few typos, clean the templates up a bit and accommodate changes in Eclipse 3.4. * Desktop File guideline modification ** https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/TomCallaway/DesktopFileVendor ** This removes language which many interpreted as requiring most desktop files to be installed with --vendor=fedora. Other discussions: * Cpack guidelines ** https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/CmakeCpack ** The committee was unclear as to how this applied to packaging guidelines at all, as it seems to contain tips for upstream developers instead of instructions for Fedora packagers. * Tweaks to the specfile template for fonts ** https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Fonts_spec_template_correcti… ** This alters the template for font packages to deal with issues surrounding the /etc/fonts/conf.avail directory. ** FPC agreed with the proposal but had some suggestions; these will be addressed and the issue will be raised later. * New guideline relating to generically named packages and files. ** Tough to actually write a guideline involving the use of common sense as applied to things like this. ** Jason will draft a proposal for consideration soon. - J<

5 7

Glade(2/3) and Anjuta in comps-f9.xml
by Debarshi Ray 22 Dec '08

22 Dec '08

Looking at http://cvs.fedoraproject.org/viewcvs/comps/comps-f9.xml.in?view=markup I find that Glade2 and Anjuta are marked as default and optional respectively. While Glade 3.4.1 (separate package from Glade2) is already there in the repositories, we are soon going to have a fresh new Anjuta package (atleast 2.2.3) in Fedora. However, the latest versions of Anjuta -- both 2.2.3 (stable) and 2.3.x (unstable) -- need Glade3 for its Glade plugin to work. So can we consider replacing Glade2 by Glade3 in the comps-f9.xml.in for Fedora 9? As far as I know, this would affect the Live Developer Spin and the non-live GNOME DVD. What do you think? Cheerio, Debarshi -- Free software for the Indian community: * ftp://fedora.glug-nith.org/ (Fedora) * http://gnu.glug-nith.org/ (GNU) * http://mirror.wbut.ac.in/ (CRAN, Fedora, Mozilla, TLDP)

4 11

Orphaning azureus
by Stefan Posdzich 19 Dec '08

19 Dec '08

I have tried now some days with this package and i cant get warm with it (+ java). I will orphan it again, i hope it will find someone who can handle this kind of apps! https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/packages/name/azureus https://bugzilla.redhat.com/buglist.cgi?quicksearch=azureus best regards Stefan

7 11

OTRS and Fedora
by Jos Vos 14 Dec '08

14 Dec '08

Hi, What is the reason that OTRS has been removed from Fedora since F8? Thanks, -- -- Jos Vos <jos(a)xos.nl> -- X/OS Experts in Open Systems BV | Phone: +31 20 6938364 -- Amsterdam, The Netherlands | Fax: +31 20 6948204

5 8

Status of libtool 2.2.X?
by Orion Poplawski 05 Dec '08

05 Dec '08

Should we get libtool 2.2.X into F-11 now? https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=435737 -- Orion Poplawski Technical Manager 303-415-9701 x222 NWRA/CoRA Division FAX: 303-415-9702 3380 Mitchell Lane orion(a)cora.nwra.com Boulder, CO 80301 http://www.cora.nwra.com

39 136

FC9: mock -r fedora-rawhide-i386 init fails
by Ralf Corsepius 01 Dec '08

01 Dec '08

Hi, Since this morning, initializing fedora-rawhide-i386 mock chroots fail for me on FC9: # mock -r fedora-rawhide-i386 init INFO: mock.py version 0.9.9 starting... ... ERROR: Command failed: # /usr/bin/yum --installroot /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-i386/root/ groupinstall buildsys-build ... /bin/sh: error while loading shared libraries: libtinfo.so.5: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory error: %post(bash-3.2-28.fc10.i386) scriptlet failed, exit status 127 ... I am able to reproduce this error on different fedora-9-i386 and fedora-9-x86_64 machines. For whatever reason, so far, on fedora-9-x86_64, "mock -r fedora-rawhide-x86_64 init" doesn't fail, nor have I encountered this error on a fedora-rawhide-i386/fedora-9.92-i386 test-machine. Ralf

5 6

Strange ext3 problem
by Joshua C. 27 Nov '08

27 Nov '08

I put this for discussion here http://forums.fedoraforum.org/showthread.php?t=202573 and got no helpful comments, so i put it here on the devel list. Short description: When copying and moving files bigger than ~ 100 mb I get different sha1 sums between the copy and the original file. Once I issued the sha1 sommand 2 consequitive times on one and the same file and got 2 (!!!) different results. This is impossible! I tested the hdd with smartmontools (short and long tests) and got no errors of any kind. then used fsck and e2fsck on the partition and they corrected something. I thought the problem was gone but here it happens again. Maybe I should file a bug report. but against what? ext3? Any ideas what this can be? --joshua

5 10

Fedora 8 and 9 updates re-enabled
by Jesse Keating 26 Nov '08

26 Nov '08

In a few hours, updates for Fedora 8 and Fedora 9 will start hitting mirrors. These updates are designed to transition users from our old repo locations to new locations that have all our updates re-signed with a new set of keys. Most users will simply need to apply the offered updates, and later apply any further updates, and verify/import the new GPG key. The process to getting new updates is two stage. Stage 1) Users configured to get updates from existing repos will see a small set of updates available in the next few hours/days. These updates include fedora-release, PackageKit, gnome-packagekit, and unique (for Fedora 8, only fedora-release is offered). These updates should be applied as soon as possible. Stage 2) Once the above updates have been applied, your update tools (yum, PackageKit, pirut) will see a new repository and a larger set of updates available. This is your new standard flow of updates, that will continue to see new updates as the lifetime of Fedora 8 and 9 progress. There will be further milestones in the future that involve redirection of release package repos to match that of updates, and removing of old gpg key from rpm trust. For more details and an FAQ, please see https://fedoraproject.org/w/index.php?title=Enabling_new_signing_key -- Jesse Keating Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature! identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating _______________________________________________ Fedora-devel-announce mailing list Fedora-devel-announce(a)redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-announce

13 19

kernel-devel in "Fedora" spin?
by Jesse Keating 26 Nov '08

26 Nov '08

Back in December, I had made a change that blocked kernel-devel packages from winding up in the install media for the Fedora spin. I don't recall getting any push back at the time, but I've gotten at least one angry comment since then. So I'm putting it out for more discussion. Do we feel that the kernel-devel (5~megs) should be in the install media? -- Jesse Keating Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature! identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating

8 12

[LONG] The fonts SIG irregular status report
by Nicolas Mailhot 18 Nov '08

18 Nov '08

Hi all, I haven't been too active on the SIG lately for lack of free time. However others (who rock) have been busy working on fonts packages, so here is a long delayed status update that will try to clear the backlog: ▪▪ General status — We have 56 entries in the wishlist. Even counting entries the packager forgot to recategorize (grrr) I think the wishlist is still growing faster than we package fonts. More active packagers are obviously needed. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Category:Font_wishlist — We have 58 entries in the packaged list. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Category:Packaged_fonts It is still nicely growing, and Fedora 9 level reviews like this one are already obsolete http://www.advogato.org/person/yosch/diary.html?start=4 — We've created 55 new packages since the start of the cycle (a wishlist entry can translate in several packages). That's pretty awesome and way past the 32 packages mark of the last report (and way past previous Fedora cycle accomplishments). Special kuddos to Dennis Jang for packaging the huge UN Korean font set (though he needs to update his wiki pages). Others didn't attain the level of awesomeness of Dennis but still did pretty well. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_inclusion_history ▪▪ Package status ▪▪▪ Packaged, with bugs still open: — sportrop-fonts, https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=456345 — asana-math-fonts, https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=455153 — icelandic-fonts https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=445261 ⇒ Packagers please close your review bugs when the packaging is finished. ▪▪▪ Packaged, but not referenced in Fedora 10 comps — myanmar3-unicode-fonts That was short :) most packagers seem to apply http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Comps_fonts_rules without prodding on my part. Good job and please fix this one. ▪▪▪ Packaged, with wiki page not finalized or missing — thibault-fonts-essays1743, — thibault-fonts-isabella, — thibault-fonts-rockets, — thibault-fonts-staypuft, — un-fonts, — un-extra-fonts, — icelandic-fonts — smc-fonts – darkgarden-fonts – sportrop-fonts — myanmar3-unicode-fonts ⇒ Please make sure each font package has a completed wiki page (Packaged fonts category) that can be used by the docs team in release notes and other documents ▪▪▪ Reviewed fonts waiting for packager action — bitstream-vera-fonts (old FE-MERGE ticket, needs someone to help Behdad co-maintain the package) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225618 — sil-gentium-basic-fonts https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=456527 — hiran-perizia-fonts https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=457709 — cf-bonveno-fonts https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=457955 — arabeyes-thabit-fonts https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=461139 — arabeyes-mothana-fonts https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=462711 — alee-fonts https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=466193 — hiran-rufscript-fonts https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=467507 ⇒ You know what you need to do ▪▪▪ Approved fonts not pushed yet — unikurd-fonts https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=457281 ▪▪▪ Waiting for a reviewer — heuristica-fonts (just cleared by FE-LEGAL) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=452317 — oldstandard-fonts https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=457947 (not an easy font to package and not baked yet IMHO. I put some comments in the bug but didn't start formal review, so this one is still open) ⇒ We need some reviewers. I can't review every single font package out there (especially since I'm not allowed to review my own). In other news more interesting material was added to the SIG wiki and a guideline change on fontconfig file location is still proceeding. And the big F11 package renaming is still planned, I just don't have the energy left to write about it. I hope you liked this report. It took a lot of work to be written. If you want some changes in the next edition, just ping me. Regards, -- Nicolas Mailhot

3 9

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 October 2008