devel November 2012

devel@lists.stg.fedoraproject.org

243 participants
217 discussions

Heads up - Ogre 1.8.1 rawhide
by Martin Preisler 11 Dec '12

11 Dec '12

Hi, I want to push Ogre 1.8.1 into rawhide next week. This will most likely break some packages but we have a lots and lots of time to fix it all up in rawhide. The changes in Ogre API aren't extensive enough for this to be a real risk and we can always revert. The most common break is Ogre::Singleton<..>::ms_Singleton being renamed to Ogre::Singleton<..>::msSingleton. As I am not a provenpackager I will need some cooperation from maintainers of pkgs depending on Ogre. -- Martin Preisler

2 5

I want upgrade my computer
by Sérgio Basto 10 Dec '12

10 Dec '12

Hi, I have two machines for test on at home and one at office , I want upgrade to F18 Beta . 1 - Try Preupgrade but No preupgrade for F17->F18 ? http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2012-August/109441.html http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2012-November/173805.html Why this was disabled And what happen if I ignore preupgrade-ok=False 2 - boot.iso, no boot.iso on http://mirrors.eu.kernel.org/fedora/development/18/x86_64/os/images/ I try one boot.iso from F18 Beta RC1 and understand why is not there , because doesn't work . 3 - Fedup , gives me a Traceback on transaction test. And don't let me upgrade . 4- use yum but I have bad memories from FC2 about use yum for upgrade 5- Live iso don't have option to upgrade So what you advise me to upgrade my systems ? Thanks in advance -- Sérgio M. B.

11 20

LibRaw: possible license issues
by Debarshi Ray 09 Dec '12

09 Dec '12

I came across what looks like a possible licensing issue with LibRaw and applications that link to it. I am not totally sure that there is a problem, but I have enough reason to have doubts. I welcome any clarifications and advice. LibRaw's License tag was changed from "LGPLv2 or CDDL" to GPLv3 when the two demosaic packs were added [1]. One of the demosaic packs is GPLv2+ and the other is GPLv3+. However, http://www.libraw.org/ mentions LibRaw's license as GPLv2+, while the source files continue to claim that they are under LGPLv2 or CDDL. Shotwell, which uses LibRaw, is LGPLv2+. By my reading of the compatibility matrix [2], it means that Shotwell is now effectively GPLv3. If that is the case, then has Yorba been notified of that? I doubt they would suddenly want their code to become GPLv3 instead of LGPLv2+. Thanks, Debarshi [1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=760638 [2] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main#GPL_Compatibility_Matrix -- There are two hard problems in computer science: cache invalidation, naming things and off-by-one errors.

9 16

Orphaning libunwind
by Jan Kratochvil 09 Dec '12

09 Dec '12

Hi, as elfutils package is going to contain unwinder in its next release orphaning the libunwind library. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/acls/name/libunwind Jan

7 15

projectM
by Jameson 08 Dec '12

08 Dec '12

Unfortunately, I'm no longer in a position to maintain the projectM packages (libprojectM, libprojectM-qt, projectM-jack, projectM-libvisual, and projectM-pulseaudio), so I will need to orphan these. If anyone would like to pick these up, feel free to come to me with questions, or help. Thanks, =-Jameson

3 2

cone : potentially orphaned package
by Michael Schwendt 08 Dec '12

08 Dec '12

2011-06-23 : FTBFS not responded to 2010-06-30 : -static packaging bug not responded to Plus, release 0.89 from 20-May-2011 is available whereas Fedora contains 0.84 from 2010 ( http://sourceforge.net/projects/courier/files/cone/ ). This looks like somebody with interest in Cone should sign up as co-maintainer and find out what's up with the current maintainer. http://bugz.fedoraproject.org/cone -- Fedora release 16 (Verne) - Linux 3.1.1-2.fc16.x86_64 loadavg: 0.82 1.09 0.87

1 1

Re: RFC: Feature process improvements
by John Dulaney 06 Dec '12

06 Dec '12

I would suggest that we create a clear SOP for fall back planning in case a feature, especially a crit path feature, is not ready for prime time. Obviously, if a feature is not %100 by feature freeze, then it needs to be dropped. I would even venture to suggest that we include in the SOP something along the lines of "If feature is not 80% by point X (X being two weeks prior to freeze), then FESCo should at that point evaluate enacting the fall back." John.

4 4

f18: how to install into a LVM partitions (or RAID)
by Dario Lesca 06 Dec '12

06 Dec '12

Hi, I have download the last Fedora-18-Beta-TC4 to do some tests http://dl.fedoraproject.org/pub/alt/stage/18-Beta-TC4/Fedora/x86_64/iso/Fed… How to install it on a empty disk and use LVM (or create a software RaID)? >From the new disk manager anaconda panel I did not understand how to create a new LVM partition and root and swap volume. Is this features not yet supported or I have lost some HOWTO? Many thanks -- Dario Lesca - sip:dario@solinos.it (Inviato dal mio Linux Fedora 17 Gnome3)

100 382

Yum Package Remove Order
by Mark Bidewell 04 Dec '12

04 Dec '12

I have been working on packaging software into RPMs for my company. These RPMs create directories in %post into which dependent RPMs install components. If I yum remove the main package it will be erased first by yum prior to erasing the dependent packages. When the uninstall scripts for the dependent packages run, they may fail due to files and directories being missing that they expect from the main package leaving things in an inconsistent state. Is this a bug or known behavior we need to account for in some way? Thanks. -- Mark Bidewell http://www.linkedin.com/in/markbidewell

10 14

RFC: Feature process improvements
by Miloslav Trmač 04 Dec '12

04 Dec '12

Hello, this proposal was recently linked in various places, so let's formally introduce it: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Mmaslano/Feature_process This an incremental change, not a major overhaul designed to solve all problems. The benefits expected from this proposal: * Making proposed features more visible to Fedora contributors, and making it easier for Fedora contributors to discuss the feature before FESCo votes on it. * Simplifying the process for self-contained features (e.g. individual package version upgrades) * Getting FESCo more involved in scheduling and testing of features with large impact on the rest of the distribution or schedule. * Making sure some frequently forgotten-about items, like rel-eng impact, are included in the feature proposal. For details, please see the proposal at the above-mentioned link. Marcela Mašláňová, Tomáš Mráz, Jaroslav Řezník, Miloslav Trmač

11 24

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 2012