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
LibRaw's License tag was changed from "LGPLv2 or CDDL" to GPLv3 when the two
demosaic packs were added . 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 , 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+.
There are two hard problems in computer science: cache invalidation, naming
things and off-by-one errors.
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.
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.
Fedora release 16 (Verne) - Linux 3.1.1-2.fc16.x86_64
loadavg: 0.82 1.09 0.87
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."
Hi, I have download the last Fedora-18-Beta-TC4 to do some tests
How to install it on a empty disk and use LVM (or create a software
>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?
Dario Lesca - sip:email@example.com
(Inviato dal mio Linux Fedora 17 Gnome3)
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?
this proposal was recently linked in various places, so let's formally
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
I'll be building hdf5 1.8.10 for rawhide shortly. This will require a rebuild
of all hdf5 using packages. I'll try to get to most of them today.
Technical Manager 303-415-9701 x222
NWRA, Boulder Office FAX: 303-415-9702
3380 Mitchell Lane orion(a)nwra.com
Boulder, CO 80301 http://www.nwra.com
Andre Robatino wrote:
> *IMPORTANT*: Both TC8 install DVDs are oversized and will not fit on
> single-layer DVDs. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DVD#Capacity for
> DVD size limits.
See what damage "Mini"DebugInfo is doing? Nobody (other than me) cared about
CD size for the live CDs, but surely DVD size for the install DVD matters!
It's time to revert "Mini"DebugInfo which isn't actually Mini at all! (It
increases compressed size, i.e. the live image size and the size of the RPMs
on the DVD, by over 10%! The smaller installed percentages the feature
advertises are only achieved through compression, which obviously doesn't
help after compression, if it was even implemented at all.)
Stop the creeping biggerism!