havege in polarssl not enabled and maintainer refuses to enable it (#1069394)
by Jonathan Dieter
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
8 years, 8 months
Packaging STLPlus
by Pranav Kant
<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>
8 years, 8 months
Fedora 21 Accepted Changes 100% Complete Deadline in two weeks
by Jaroslav Reznik
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
8 years, 8 months
Renaming "rubygem-passenger" to "passenger"
by Jan Kaluža
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
8 years, 8 months
Multiple directory ownership including filesystem package
by Till Maas
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
8 years, 8 months