netcdf update and soname bump
by Orion Poplawski
I'm about to build a netcdf 4.1.0 beta snapshot for F-13. This is a
soname bump (libnetcdf.so.4 -> libnetcdf.so.6). It also enables the
netcdf4, dap, and ncgen4 features of netcdf.
The following packages will need to get rebuilt:
cdo-0:1.0.8-6.fc12.i686
dap-netcdf_handler-0:3.8.3-2.fc12.i686
gdal-0:1.6.1-2.fc12.i686
gdl-0:0.9-0.7.rc3.fc12.i686
GMT-0:4.5.1-1.fc12.i686
grace-0:5.1.22-5.fc12.i686
grads-0:1.9b4-28.fc12.i686
kst-netcdf-0:1.8.0-3.fc12.i686
nco-0:3.9.8-2.fc12.i686
ncview-0:1.93c-6.fc12.i686
netcdf-decoders-0:5.0.0-5.fc12.i686
netcdf-perl-0:1.2.4-2.fc12.i686
ScientificPython-0:2.8-6.fc11.i586
scrip-0:1.4-14.fc12.i686
wgrib2-0:1.8.1-1.fc12.i686
xgridedit-0:4.5.1-1.fc12.i686
I'm the owner for several of these and can rebuild others if needed as well.
--
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
14 years, 6 months
FF 3.5.5 for F-12
by Bojan Smojver
What happened to that? It's been built in Koji but it's not Rawhide or
updates...
--
Bojan
14 years, 6 months
rawhide report: 20091112 changes
by Fedora compose checker
Compose started at Thu Nov 12 08:15:08 UTC 2009
Summary:
Added Packages: 0
Removed Packages: 0
Modified Packages: 0
14 years, 6 months
Re: Broken dependencies with Fedora 11 updates-testing - 2009-11-11
by Rahul Sundaram
On 11/12/2009 01:05 AM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> The following packages in the repository suffer from broken dependencies:
>
> ======================================================================
> The results in this summary consider Test Updates!
> ======================================================================
>
> package: tremulous-1.1.0-8.fc11.i586 from fedora-11-i386
> unresolved deps:
> libopenal.so.0
---
Seriously, can the openal maintainer please stop breaking the ABI in
updates? This isn't the first time. Is there a real necessity to do so?
Rahul
14 years, 6 months
Re: rpms/iptstate/F-12 iptstate.spec,1.21,1.22
by Michael Schwendt
On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 09:17:58 +0000 (UTC), Paul wrote:
> Author: stingray
>
> Update of /cvs/pkgs/rpms/iptstate/F-12
> %changelog
> +* Tue Nov 10 2009 Paul P. Komkoff Jr <i(a)stingr.net> - 2.2.2-2
> +- rebuild for libnetfilter_conntrack-0.0.100
> +
> +* Tue Nov 10 2009 Thomas Woerner <twoerner(a)redhat.com> 2.2.2-1
> +- new version 2.2.2
> +- removed upstream strerror patch
> +- fixed package description (rhbz#140516)
> +
Caution! Dude, you should slow down quite a bit and give all this a second
thought.
You have not yet committed and built the new libnetfilter_conntrack
upgrade for F-12. Rebuilding the other packages for F-12 won't work
correctly because of that. They are built against the old library.
Take your time. Update your cvs working-directory with "cvs up -d" to get
the F-12 branch, then follow Fedora procedures for this ABI-incompatible
library upgrade (which means to request a koji buildroot override tag from
Fedora Release Engineering so the new libnetfilter_conntrack for F-12 will
be made available in the koji buildroot _prior_ to pushing it into the
stable updates repository. That way you can prepare all rebuilds without
pushing any incompatible upgrades into the stable repo). If you need help,
ask your sponsor, or ask on this list.
14 years, 6 months
Are conflicts in debuginfo packages OK?
by Björn Persson
Hello, could someone help me understand the rules about file conflicts and
debuginfo packages?
I thought there was a rule that if the 32-bit and 64-bit versions of a package
provide the same file, then the file's contents must be identical in both
packages, with an exception for binary executable files in standard locations
like /usr/bin. Now I've noticed that lots of debuginfo packages seem to be
violating this rule. The debuginfo packages put files in /usr/lib/debug/usr/bin
and similar directories, and the exception doesn't seem to apply to these
directories, because RPM complains about conflicts when I try to install both
architecture versions of a debuginfo package.
I don't see that I as a packager can do anything to prevent these conflicts.
Shall I conclude that I don't need to care about conflicts between architecture
versions of debuginfo packages? Or shall I try to avoid conflicts in debuginfo
packages for libraries, but not for programs? I think I can avoid debuginfo
conflicts in packages that provide only libraries, but maybe I shouldn't
bother?
Björn Persson
14 years, 6 months
rpm %verify
by Steve Grubb
Hello,
I have 2 bugzillas asking for %verify to be added to %config files. I am
wondering if this is a good idea at all. The issue is that if you wanted to
verify whether or not config files have changed, then this causes you to lose
that ability. Adding --noscript to the verify command does not make rpm
suddenly report the issues it was hiding. Does this mean that rpm is not
working right? Or does this mean that we cannot use rpm for integrity checking
for any package that has %verify attributes for config files?
Thanks,
-Steve
PS - Anyone wanting to experiment can use the setup package and change the
/etc/hosts file to verify what I am saying.
14 years, 6 months