I have no more time to support the following packages in the Fedora.
jack-audio-connection-kit -- The Jack Audio Connection Kit
klamav -- Clam Anti-Virus on the KDE Desktop
man-pages-uk -- Ukrainian man pages from the Linux Documentation Project
python-alsa -- Python binding for the ALSA library
qstat -- Real-time Game Server Status for FPS game servers
uniconvertor -- Universal vector graphics translator
With Best Regards,
I just orphaned gdk-pixbuf in pkgdb.
It failed the mass rebuild, not much left that depends on it, and
nothing I need. ;)
% repoquery --source --whatrequires gdk-pixbuf
So, if anyone really really really wants to keep it alive, feel free to
take it and fix it so it builds and works. ;)
Are there any plans to provide PostgreSQL 9.1 in Fedora 16? PostgreSQL
9.1 is in beta2 now and it's scheduled for Q3 2011.
It would be nice to see Lucene Core in F16. There is an old Lucene
2.9.x for F16 - the latest upstream version is 3.3.
This is something I got in my mail box today.
As I don't have a valid answer for this, maybe someone else can answer for me?
the url of the blog of the guy: http://www.krisbuytaert.be/blog/
== the mail ==
Over the course of the day I recieved 22^3 mails from your friendly Bug Zapper.
Most of those bugs where bugs I had reported upon crashes using
bug-buddy. Bugs on different desktop tools such as .. synergy,
evolution, gwibber , gnome-settings and probably some others
I do understand that I development goes on and on .. and your fancy
devs don't care anymore about
bugs I reported on Fedora 12 as they are all hacking on Fedora 15.
But what I don't get is that non of these bugs was ever touched,
they've been automatically created , and automatically closed
<a href="http://tieguy.org/blog/2004/09/">Luis</a> already told us
ages ago .. that every project needs a bugmaster apparently Fedora
replaced that bugmaster with a Bug Zapper.
So can someone please explain my why I should continue to try to
improve Fedora by reporting bugs ?
I decided to try to help the cause of Bayesian statistics and the open
source effort of the OpenBUGS group (http://www.openbugs.info/w/) by
making some packages. In case you are not a statistically-inclined
person, it is worth knowing that Bayesian Updating with Gibbs Sampling
(BUGS) has caused something of a methodological landslide since the
early 1990s, helping scholars to model processes that were thought to
be too difficult.
In Linux, we do not have access to the OpenBUGS GUI, which
I've built deb and rpm packages for RedHat, Fedora and Ubuntu. They
are available in my webspace and in the project.
I wish these could be in the official linux repositories, but I've not
tried to put these into an official repository because there are 2
problems that seem prohibitive.
First, the (now open) code for OpenBugs is written in Object Pascal
and it requires a compiler framework called "Black Box" which is, as
far as I can understand, available only for MS Windows. The OpenBUGS
team compiles that library, and then for linux we use some accessor
scripts to send jobs to it.
This, of course, goes against the packaging policy that pre-compiled
libraries are prohibited.
I was wondering if there could be an exception here, since the code is
actually available and open. This is more reasonable than
re-packaging the closed Nvidia drivers, for example.
Second, there is a little packaging problem for 64 bit systems. The
library that is provided is only 32 bit, and to build it for a 64 bit
system, there is a somewhat confusing situation. The library itself
gets put into /usr/lib, which is supposed to be for 64 bit libraries.
And to make the whole thing package up in a workable way, the arch
ends up saying the packge is x86_64, even though it is only 32 bit.
To run OpenBUGS on a 64 bit system, one h as to install the 32bit libc
I've built the RPM on a 32bit system, it comes out with the proper x86
target in the file name,but that package will not instlal on the 64
bit systems. Should it? (As I said, I can build the package on the 64
bit system, and it comes out with a 64 bit file name, but it is really
32 bits.). Oh, bother, this is confusing to me, I can't imagine your
On the other hand, the ones I build on a 64 bit system:
Show up with 64bit names even though they are 32 bit programs:
In the current Fedora framework, I can't understand if that is
supposed to happen.
Paul E. Johnson
Professor, Political Science
1541 Lilac Lane, Room 504
University of Kansas
Just something I wanted to bring to attention:
Java 7 is slated for release (after years of hassle and heated debate)
on 28 July, 2011.
I think this would be an important feature to include for the Fedora
16 release, and the months between Java's release and Fedora 16's 25
October release would allow plenty of time to integrate Java 7. If I'm
not mistaken, if Java 7 isn't released this time around, it won't be
in Fedora until the Fedora 17 release rolls around, nearly a year (!)
after Java 7 is released.
I created an unfinished, skeletal feature page here:
Unfortunately, I don't have the knowledge to help build it. I'm
announcing it here in case whoever maintains Java 6 in Fedora, or
someone else, is interested.
I just did a "package-cleanup --orphans" on my Rawhide machine to see
which of the just-blocked packages are installed there. To my
surprise, I got this:
# package-cleanup --orphans
Loaded plugins: auto-update-debuginfo, langpacks, presto, refresh-packagekit
[snip stuff that I need to take care of]
# repoquery rpm
Was this intentional?