devel October 2014

devel@lists.stg.fedoraproject.org

232 participants
256 discussions

havege in polarssl not enabled and maintainer refuses to enable it (#1069394)
by Jonathan Dieter 01 Oct '14

01 Oct '14

The havege functions in the polarssl package are currently disabled in the Fedora package. Newer releases of dolphin-emu, which are in a popular external repository, require these functions. According to https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1069394#c1, the HAVEGE feature is disabled because it's "controversial" and "would lead to security problems", but the maintainer hasn't given any more explanation than that in the bug report. Is there any way we can get a second opinion on this? The external repository follows Fedora's guidelines to the best of their ability, and this includes the prohibition on bundling, so we'd really like to get this fixed. Jonathan

4 5

[Test-Announce] Fedora 21 Beta Test Compose 1 (TC1) Available Now!
by Andre Robatino 01 Oct '14

01 Oct '14

As per the Fedora 21 schedule [1], Fedora 21 Beta Test Compose 1 (TC1) is now available for testing. Content information, including changes, can be found at https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/6010 . Please see the following pages for download links (including delta ISOs) and testing instructions. Normally dl.fedoraproject.org should provide the fastest download, but download-ib01.fedoraproject.org is available as a mirror (with an approximately 1 hour lag) in case of trouble. To use it, just replace "dl" with "download-ib01" in the download URL. Installation: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Current_Installation_Test Base: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Current_Base_Test Workstation and Desktop: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Current_Desktop_Test Server: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Current_Server_Test Ideally, all Alpha and Beta priority test cases for each of these test pages [2] should pass in order to meet the Beta Release Criteria [3]. Help is available on #fedora-qa on irc.freenode.net [4], or on the test list [5]. Create Fedora 21 Beta test compose (TC) and release candidate (RC) https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/6010 Current Blocker and Freeze Exception bugs: http://qa.fedoraproject.org/blockerbugs/current [1] http://fedorapeople.org/groups/schedule/f-21/f-21-quality-tasks.html [2] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Release_validation_test_plan [3] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_21_Beta_Release_Criteria [4] irc://irc.freenode.net/fedora-qa [5] https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test _______________________________________________ test-announce mailing list test-announce(a)lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test-announce

1 0

Packaging STLPlus
by Pranav Kant 01 Oct '14

01 Oct '14

<div dir="ltr"><div><div><div>Hello,<br></div>I am trying to package STLPlus (<a href="http://sourceforge.net/projects/stlplus/files/stlplus3/" target="_blank">sourceforge.net/projects/<wbr>stlplus/files/stlplus3/</a>) library for fedora. There are few doubts I have in mind regarding packaging it.<br><br></div>1. The library is dependent on another project viz. 'makefiles' (<a href="http://sourceforge.net/projects/stlplus/files/makefiles/" target="_blank">http://sourceforge.net/<wbr>projects/stlplus/files/<wbr>makefiles/</a>). This project is also distributed in a separate tar ball. This project only contains few helper files that are included by the STLPlus library's makefile (Hence, STLPlus requires this package for build only). Other projects can also make use of this project to write their makefiles quickly. I think makefiles project is more generic and not quite specific to STLPlus, hence must be packaged separately. Is it right to package it separately ? Though I understand that 'makefiles' name is too general and should be renamed to something else may be ?<br><br></div>2. Re. Location of 'makefiles' project : Since, it only contains few helper files, I am wondering what would be the best location for installing these files ? datadir ? libdir ?<br clear="all"><br>-- <br><div dir="ltr"><div>Regards,<br>Pranav Kant,<br></div><div>Department of Computer Science<br>National Institute of Technology Hamirpur<br></div><div><a href="http://pricked.in/" target="_blank">http://pricked.in/</a><br></div></div> </div>

3 4

Fedora 21 Accepted Changes 100% Complete Deadline in two weeks
by Jaroslav Reznik 01 Oct '14

01 Oct '14

Greetings! This time I'm sending "Accepted Changes 100% Complete" reminder a bit earlier than usually as we still have quite a lot of work to do on Changes and it's going to help other teams to participate in Changes process earlier (aka Docs team etc.). 2014-10-14 Accepted Changes 100% Complete Expected bug state is ON_QA - Change has to be code completed and can be tested in the Beta release (optionally by Fedora QA). Please make sure to update state of yours Change(s) bug(s) on time. In case of any problems, let me know, we will try to find solution. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/21/Schedule Expect more nagging in Change bug(s) between now and Beta Freeze ;-). Thanks Jaroslav -- Your friendly Change Wrangler _______________________________________________ devel-announce mailing list devel-announce(a)lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel-announce

1 0

Renaming "rubygem-passenger" to "passenger"
by Jan Kaluža 01 Oct '14

01 Oct '14

Hi, upstream asked us 6 months ago if it would be possible to rename "rubygem-passenger" package to "passenger" and clean-up the package little bit to match the progress Passenger did in last years. The reason to do this is that Passenger is not real rubygem anymore and supports more languages than just Ruby. During the years, "rubygem-passenger" package deviated little bit and in some respects does not respect Fedora Guidelines. I've changed the existing "rubygem-passenger" package to match the Fedora Guidelines and I'm going to rename it to "passenger" in Fedora Rawhide. All other Passenger maintainers are aware of this change. You can see the rename review here: <https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1074515>. Regards, Jan Kaluza

1 0

Multiple directory ownership including filesystem package
by Till Maas 30 Sep '14

30 Sep '14

Hi, I noticed that mulitple packages own /etc/bash_completion.d/ even though it is nowadays part of the filesystem package. From what I read from the Guidelines, it is not clear to me whether it is prohibited or not. Should it be fixed? Here is a current list for Fedora 19: repoquery --whatprovides /etc/bash_completion.d/ --qf "%{sourcerpm}" | rev | cut -d- -f 3- | rev | sort -u | src/fedoradev-pkgowners scop bash-completion cicku be mjakubicek boinc-client salimma bti hno bzr kevin calibre sundaram cowsay petersen darcs bkabrda devassistant lbazan eg thm etckeeper cleech fcoe-utils ausil fedpkg ovasik filesystem rcritten freeipa chrisw git ankursinha hamster-time-tracker petersen haskell-platform salimma leiningen bsjones lilv cleech lldpad greenscientist lttng-tools thm lxc rdieter lyx nbecker mercurial jcwillia mock thm monotone mathstuf ninja-build phatina openlmi-tools pvrabec openscap iarnell perl-Dist-Zilla lotharlutz phoronix-test-suite hubbitus plowshare mrunge python-django mrunge python-django14 jamatos python-doit jruzicka python-novaclient rkukura python-quantumclient jwboyer quilt ausil rpkg scop rpmdevtools adrian source-highlight msuchy spacecmd thias sshmenu pschiffe stgit jorton subversion ultrafredde task thm topgit jskarvad tuned vicodan udisks packaging-team yum-utils Regards Till

7 10

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 2014