Hi
I did a quick survey from Fedora on what software Fedora users are using that is not available in the repo. Here are the results. If you find anything interesting, feel free to pick it up.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging_Survey_May_2009
Rahul
2009/5/27 Rahul Sundaram :
Hi
I did a quick survey from Fedora on what software Fedora users are using that is not available in the repo. Here are the results. If you find anything interesting, feel free to pick it up.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging_Survey_May_2009
Rahul
Hi
I looked at Unknown Horizons and it has Creative Commons Sampling Plus 1.0 license[1] on some[2] of the sounds. I noted this in the table also added the game to the forbidden games list until upstream can replace these sounds.
[1] http://www.unknown-horizons.org/site/index.php?page=licence [2] http://trac.unknown-horizons.org/browser/trunk/content/audio/sounds/SOUND_LI...
On 05/27/2009 06:08 PM, Nikolay Vladimirov wrote:
I looked at Unknown Horizons and it has Creative Commons Sampling Plus 1.0 license[1] on some[2] of the sounds. I noted this in the table also added the game to the forbidden games list until upstream can replace these sounds.
[1] http://www.unknown-horizons.org/site/index.php?page=licence [2] http://trac.unknown-horizons.org/browser/trunk/content/audio/sounds/SOUND_LI...
Thanks for looking into this. This is a small number. We have some folks interested in sound and can provide replacements. CC'ing.
Rahul
2009/5/27 Rahul Sundaram wrote:
On 05/27/2009 06:08 PM, Nikolay Vladimirov wrote:
I looked at Unknown Horizons and it has Creative Commons Sampling Plus 1.0 license[1] on some[2] of the sounds. I noted this in the table also added the game to the forbidden games list until upstream can replace these sounds.
[1] http://www.unknown-horizons.org/site/index.php?page=licence [2] http://trac.unknown-horizons.org/browser/trunk/content/audio/sounds/SOUND_LI...
Thanks for looking into this. This is a small number. We have some folks interested in sound and can provide replacements. CC'ing.
Rahul
Upstream request for this -> http://trac.unknown-horizons.org/ticket/312
On Wed May 27 2009, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
I did a quick survey from Fedora on what software Fedora users are using that is not available in the repo. Here are the results. If you find anything interesting, feel free to pick it up.
remind is already in Fedora since F6: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/packages/name/remind
I removed it from the list, but the added it back. I am not sure why, but providing a editor note about your changes would make it a lot easier to cooperate, e.g. you can see in the history why I removed remind and in which revision thanks to the note.
Regards, Till
On 05/27/2009 06:19 PM, Till Maas wrote:
On Wed May 27 2009, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
I did a quick survey from Fedora on what software Fedora users are using that is not available in the repo. Here are the results. If you find anything interesting, feel free to pick it up.
remind is already in Fedora since F6: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/packages/name/remind
I removed it from the list, but the added it back.
My mistake. I thought I had accidentally deleted it and added it back
I am not sure why, but
providing a editor note about your changes would make it a lot easier to cooperate, e.g. you can see in the history why I removed remind and in which revision thanks to the note.
I added a comment instead. Thanks.
Rahul
On Wednesday 27 May 2009 12:31:56 Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Hi
I did a quick survey from Fedora on what software Fedora users are using that is not available in the repo. Here are the results. If you find anything interesting, feel free to pick it up.
root is being reviewed (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=451744)
Rahul
On 05/27/2009 06:53 PM, José Matos wrote:
On Wednesday 27 May 2009 12:31:56 Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Hi
I did a quick survey from Fedora on what software Fedora users are using that is not available in the repo. Here are the results. If you find anything interesting, feel free to pick it up.
root is being reviewed (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=451744)
Added the review request to the wiki to keep track of this. Thanks.
Rahul
On Wed, 27 May 2009, José Matos wrote:
On Wednesday 27 May 2009 12:31:56 Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Hi
I did a quick survey from Fedora on what software Fedora users are using that is not available in the repo. Here are the results. If you find anything interesting, feel free to pick it up.
root is being reviewed (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=451744)
I have no problem with root being packaged, it used to be no small task to package root so if it is on its way I think that's great.
I just want to relate my first exposure to 'root'. I was a sysadmin in the physics dept at duke university. I was told one of the workstations in the High Energy Physics dept was running slowly and asked if I could check it out.
I login and discover a process running named 'rootd'. I suspend my desire to freak out a bit and eventually trace it back to a user's homedir where they've unzipped and built a local copy of cern's root. At this point I vow a silent oath to get even with whomever named the software 'root' and go about my day.
That's my story. :)
-sv
On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 5:31 AM, Rahul Sundaram sundaram@fedoraproject.org wrote:
Hi
I did a quick survey from Fedora on what software Fedora users are using that is not available in the repo. Here are the results. If you find anything interesting, feel free to pick it up.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging_Survey_May_2009
Rahul
That's an interesting list! I wonder why CMU Common Lisp is on there, though. It's been in Fedora for a long time:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/packages/name/cmucl
Perhaps it is because CMUCL is available on 32-bit systems only, so somebody with a 64-bit system noticed that it was "missing".
On 05/27/2009 07:41 PM, Jerry James wrote:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/packages/name/cmucl
Perhaps it is because CMUCL is available on 32-bit systems only, so somebody with a 64-bit system noticed that it was "missing".
Very likely. This is all direct feedback from fedora-list and fedoraforum.org primarily. So I guess the user was using 64-bit. I will ask him. Why isn't CMUCL available for 64-bit systems?
Rahul
On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 07:47:30PM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
On 05/27/2009 07:41 PM, Jerry James wrote:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/packages/name/cmucl
Perhaps it is because CMUCL is available on 32-bit systems only, so somebody with a 64-bit system noticed that it was "missing".
Very likely. This is all direct feedback from fedora-list and fedoraforum.org primarily. So I guess the user was using 64-bit. I will ask him. Why isn't CMUCL available for 64-bit systems?
Because no one managed to write a code generator for x86-64 and PPC yet:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=185085
Rich.
On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 8:21 AM, Richard W.M. Jones rjones@redhat.com wrote:
Because no one managed to write a code generator for x86-64 and PPC yet:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=185085
Rich.
-- Richard Jones, Emerging Technologies, Red Hat http://et.redhat.com/~rjones virt-df lists disk usage of guests without needing to install any software inside the virtual machine. Supports Linux and Windows. http://et.redhat.com/~rjones/virt-df/
Also, there are a number of places in the code where it is assumed that sizeof(void *) == sizeof(int). Note that SBCL, which is also in Fedora, is a fork of CMUCL. SBCL does work on 64-bit systems. The two are not entirely compatible, though.
On Wed, 2009-05-27 at 17:01 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Hi
I did a quick survey from Fedora on what software Fedora users are using that is not available in the repo. Here are the results. If you find anything interesting, feel free to pick it up.
as noted on the survey, I intend to package sk1 once things get a little less crazy around the f11 release :). I already maintain it for MDV, and it'd be fairly trivial to convert the spec.
On Wed, 27 May 2009 17:01:56 +0530 Rahul Sundaram sundaram@fedoraproject.org wrote:
Hi
I did a quick survey from Fedora on what software Fedora users are using that is not available in the repo. Here are the results. If you find anything interesting, feel free to pick it up.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging_Survey_May_2009
Rahul
I can put my courier-authlib packages up for review - rpmlint only has fairly minor complaints which are easily fixed - which will in turn allow maildrop (which is already here) to build against it.
Courier-imap has it's own peculiar way of self-upgrading (via sysconftool, another one of Sam's tools) which is extremely convenient for the end-user but is definitely not the Fedora way of doing things.
The spec file is like a rougelike for RPM - once you go in you may never come back alive
The configuration files under /usr/libexec can be moved around with symlinks but getting it in good enough shape to pass review would require some major surgery. However I'm on holidays from work at the moment so I have some spare time, I might give it a shot anyway. :-)
Michael.
On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 12:31 PM, Rahul Sundaram sundaram@fedoraproject.org wrote:
Hi
I did a quick survey from Fedora on what software Fedora users are using that is not available in the repo. Here are the results. If you find anything interesting, feel free to pick it up.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging_Survey_May_2009
Rahul
Hi,
I don't think JEP should be on that list. I've used it in few commercial products and its a thousand dollars a pop for a source code licence:
http://www.singularsys.com/order/
Regards, Mat
On 05/29/2009 07:34 PM, Mat Booth wrote:
I don't think JEP should be on that list. I've used it in few commercial products and its a thousand dollars a pop for a source code licence:
JEP in the wiki is linked to http://sourceforge.net/projects/jep/. Are you even talking about the same software?
Rahul
On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 5:55 PM, Rahul Sundaram sundaram@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On 05/29/2009 07:34 PM, Mat Booth wrote:
I don't think JEP should be on that list. I've used it in few commercial products and its a thousand dollars a pop for a source code licence:
JEP in the wiki is linked to http://sourceforge.net/projects/jep/. Are you even talking about the same software?
Yes, I think we are. At the very top of the page you link to it says:
"As of 2008-09-29 23:14, this project may now be found at: http://www.singularsys.com/jep"
Mat Booth wrote:
Yes, I think we are. At the very top of the page you link to it says:
"As of 2008-09-29 23:14, this project may now be found at: http://www.singularsys.com/jep"
So that's one of those evil packages which has switched to become non-Free. People caring about it need to organize a fork as soon as possible.
Kevin Kofler
On 05/29/2009 10:47 PM, Mat Booth wrote:
"As of 2008-09-29 23:14, this project may now be found at: http://www.singularsys.com/jep"
Wouldn't older versions still exist under the open source license? Are they still useful?
Rahul
On Fri, 29 May 2009 12:55:50 -0400, Rahul Sundaram sundaram@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On 05/29/2009 07:34 PM, Mat Booth wrote:
I don't think JEP should be on that list. I've used it in few commercial products and its a thousand dollars a pop for a source code licence:
JEP in the wiki is linked to http://sourceforge.net/projects/jep/. Are you even talking about the same software?
at the top of the sourceforge link you provided, it say "As of 2008-09-29 00:00, this project may now be found at http://www.singularsys.com/jep" so yes, it's the same software
On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 1:31 PM, Rahul Sundaram sundaram@fedoraproject.org wrote:
Hi
I did a quick survey from Fedora on what software Fedora users are using that is not available in the repo. Here are the results. If you find anything interesting, feel free to pick it up.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging_Survey_May_2009
Rahul
Here is my wishlist of packages I would LOVE to see in Fedora:
- Songbird - XBMC (best media center for Linux) - Navit (GPS navigation) - Freemind (Mind mapping java app) - Boxee (XBMC + social aspect) - BackupNinja
regarding XBMC: http://howtoforge.com/installing-xbmc-on-fedora-9-i386 regarding Songbird, Fedora RPM is here: http://wiki.songbirdnest.com/Developer/Articles/Builds/Contributed_Builds
Valent Turkovic (valent.turkovic@gmail.com) said:
On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 1:31 PM, Rahul Sundaram sundaram@fedoraproject.org wrote:
Hi
I did a quick survey from Fedora on what software Fedora users are using that is not available in the repo. Here are the results. If you find anything interesting, feel free to pick it up.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging_Survey_May_2009
Rahul
Here is my wishlist of packages I would LOVE to see in Fedora:
...
- XBMC (best media center for Linux)
...
- Boxee (XBMC + social aspect)
regarding XBMC: http://howtoforge.com/installing-xbmc-on-fedora-9-i386
Given that, it's not going to be possible to include them in Fedora, due to the code they require to build against.
Bill
On Mon, 2009-06-01 at 17:56 +0200, Valent Turkovic wrote:
Here is my wishlist of packages I would LOVE to see in Fedora:
- Songbird
- XBMC (best media center for Linux)
Both of these are horrible, horrible code bases.
- Navit (GPS navigation)
I packaged this for MDV a few months back:
http://svn.mandriva.com/cgi-bin/viewvc.cgi/packages/cooker/navit/current/
hasn't been updated since then though.
On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 3:31 AM, Rahul Sundaram sundaram@fedoraproject.org wrote:
Hi
I did a quick survey from Fedora on what software Fedora users are using that is not available in the repo. Here are the results. If you find anything interesting, feel free to pick it up.
eucalyptus has a non-trivial list of java deps that we don't have packaged yet. I looked at the 1.5 pre-release tarballs in launchpad before ecualyptus opened up its bzr trees to the public. Ubuntu seems to have initially solved this problem in a way that our packaging review process would definitely not allow. They lumped a lot of individual java codebased together into a single package in order to streamline the effort to get eucalyptus into universe. http://packages.ubuntu.com/jaunty/eucalyptus-javadeps
It would take a concerted effort of a number of contributors with reasonable java packaging experience to work together and coordinate package reviews to build up the complete set of java packages needed for full eucalyptus functionality. I would definitely not be among them. If people are serious about it. I really suggest they start forming up a team and start working on it now with F12 as a target release for the first full set of packages.
-jef
Jeff Spaleta wrote:
On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 3:31 AM, Rahul Sundaram sundaram@fedoraproject.org wrote:
Hi
I did a quick survey from Fedora on what software Fedora users are using that is not available in the repo. Here are the results. If you find anything interesting, feel free to pick it up.
eucalyptus has a non-trivial list of java deps that we don't have packaged yet. I looked at the 1.5 pre-release tarballs in launchpad before ecualyptus opened up its bzr trees to the public. Ubuntu seems to have initially solved this problem in a way that our packaging review process would definitely not allow. They lumped a lot of individual java codebased together into a single package in order to streamline the effort to get eucalyptus into universe. http://packages.ubuntu.com/jaunty/eucalyptus-javadeps
It would take a concerted effort of a number of contributors with reasonable java packaging experience to work together and coordinate package reviews to build up the complete set of java packages needed for full eucalyptus functionality. I would definitely not be among them. If people are serious about it. I really suggest they start forming up a team and start working on it now with F12 as a target release for the first full set of packages.
-jef
Did eucalyptus ever get packaged for F12 ?
I didn't find anything in rawhide today when I checked it.
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
On 10/23/2009 09:19 AM, Gerry Reno wrote:
Did eucalyptus ever get packaged for F12 ?
I didn't find anything in rawhide today when I checked it.
Nobody volunteered yet.
Rahul
I see on the eucalyptus site that they now have rpms available for CentOS 5.3. Maybe that would make it easier now to create packages for Fedora.
Gerry Reno wrote:
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
On 10/23/2009 09:19 AM, Gerry Reno wrote:
Did eucalyptus ever get packaged for F12 ?
I didn't find anything in rawhide today when I checked it.
Nobody volunteered yet.
Rahul
I see on the eucalyptus site that they now have rpms available for CentOS 5.3. Maybe that would make it easier now to create packages for Fedora.
Oops. I take that back. There are rpms in the download lists for other Linux versions but looks like only .tar.gz for CentOS.
Anyway, I trying to install eucalyptus on Fedora 11 and here is what I think the prerequisites are when installing all controllers on one node:
yum install java-1.6.0-openjdk-devel ant ant-nodeps libvirt libvirt-devel curl libcurl-devel httpd httpd-devel apr apr-devel openssl openssl-devel dhcp m2crypto
I'll see if I can get it installed.
On 10/23/2009 10:08 AM, Gerry Reno wrote:
Oops. I take that back. There are rpms in the download lists for other Linux versions but looks like only .tar.gz for CentOS.
Anyway, I trying to install eucalyptus on Fedora 11 and here is what I think the prerequisites are when installing all controllers on one node:
yum install java-1.6.0-openjdk-devel ant ant-nodeps libvirt libvirt-devel curl libcurl-devel httpd httpd-devel apr apr-devel openssl openssl-devel dhcp m2crypto
I'll see if I can get it installed.
Looks like building from source may use customized versions of axis2/c rampart/c and libvirt. Doesn't look like axis2/c or rampart/c are in Fedora.
Orion Poplawski wrote:
On 10/23/2009 10:08 AM, Gerry Reno wrote:
Oops. I take that back. There are rpms in the download lists for other Linux versions but looks like only .tar.gz for CentOS.
Anyway, I trying to install eucalyptus on Fedora 11 and here is what I think the prerequisites are when installing all controllers on one node:
yum install java-1.6.0-openjdk-devel ant ant-nodeps libvirt libvirt-devel curl libcurl-devel httpd httpd-devel apr apr-devel openssl openssl-devel dhcp m2crypto
I'll see if I can get it installed.
Looks like building from source may use customized versions of axis2/c rampart/c and libvirt. Doesn't look like axis2/c or rampart/c are in Fedora.
Ok, there are rpms for CentOS 5.3. They packaged them inside the .tar.gz download file. In the deps directory there are rpms for axis2 and rampart. I don't see any srpms yet.
devel@lists.stg.fedoraproject.org
-
Adam Williamson -
Bill Nottingham -
Gerry Reno -
James Cassell -
Jef Spaleta -
Jerry James -
José Abílio Matos -
Kevin Kofler -
Mat Booth -
Michael Fleming -
Nikolay Vladimirov -
Orion Poplawski -
Rahul Sundaram -
Rex Dieter -
Richard W.M. Jones -
Seth Vidal -
Till Maas -
Valent Turkovic