kmod-madwifi
by Adam Ornat
Does anybody know how soon there will be a new version
of a kmod-madwifi package for a 2.6.22.1-27.fc7
kernel?
Thanks,
Art
16 years, 9 months
Duplicate pacakges question
by Adam Ornat
Is there a utility that identifies/deletes duplicate
(older version) packages in Fedora?
Thanks,
Art
16 years, 9 months
Missing the meeting today
by Tom Callaway
Sorry guys, but I'm going to be missing the meeting today. I'd hoped to
be able to at least put forward a draft for the Licensing issue, but I'm
still buried in boxes.
I'll try to get something written up this week, and send it to the list.
~spot
16 years, 9 months
Re: rpm installation tests / script tests
by Rex Dieter
Florian La Roche wrote on fedora-maintainers
> On Wed, Jul 11, 2007 at 07:41:55AM -0500, Rex Dieter wrote:
>> Florian La Roche wrote:
>> > anything holding back an update of the default snippets we
>> > propose for Fedora until a more permanent solution in
>> > rpm/tools is available?
>> The Snippets wiki has been updated, after getting feedback on the
>> fedora-desktop list.
> it still says that no deps are needed, but should list a dependency
> for touch/coreutils in there.
At first, I thought
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-4cadce5e79d38a63c...
applied here, but that's only for BuildRequires.
Do we need to come up with a similar list for packages assumed to be present
at run-time, stuff like:
glibc kernel coreutils
??
-- Rex
16 years, 9 months
Absent from meeting today
by Jesse Keating
I have a conflict today and won't be able to make the meeting.
Spot is traveling and will also not be able to make the meeting.
--
Jesse Keating
Release Engineer: Fedora
16 years, 9 months
Re: rpm installation tests / script tests
by Rex Dieter
Florian La Roche wrote:
> anything holding back an update of the default snippets we
> propose for Fedora until a more permanent solution in
> rpm/tools is available?
The Snippets wiki has been updated, after getting feedback on the
fedora-desktop list.
-- Rex
> ----- Forwarded message from Rex Dieter <rdieter(a)math.unl.edu> -----
>
> From: Rex Dieter <rdieter(a)math.unl.edu>
> Subject: Re: rpm installation tests / script tests
> To: fedora-maintainers(a)redhat.com
> Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2007 06:26:41 -0500
>
> Alain PORTAL wrote:
>
>
>> This is the same error for the 3 packages
>> ERROR: Output running post uninstall script for package
>> piklab-0:0.14.2-2.fc7.i386
>> /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.TpqGGv: line 2: /usr/bin/gtk-update-icon-cache: No such
>> file or directory
>>
>> but
>>
>
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets?action=show&red...
>> said "Note that no dependencies should be added for this."
>>
>> So, what we have to do?
>
> Hrm, looks like an oversight in the guidelines... should probably wrap the
> call in something like:
> 1. if [ -x /usr/bin/gtk-update-icon-cache ]; then ...
> or
> 2. redirect output (using something like >& /dev/null
> (I use the latter mostly).
>
> -- Rex
16 years, 9 months
build ID -debuginfo rpm convention
by Roland McGrath
I saw in the archives there were actually a couple of replies, though I
received none. I guess the list breaks proper reply-to and cc and so
people weren't cc'ing me (I'm not on the list).
The two questions made it sound like noone read
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/RolandMcGrath/BuildID
where the whole plan is explained in detail.
The ID bits are the thing you have from the core file that makes it
possible (via the /usr/lib/debug/.build-id/ convention) to figure out which
binaries you need.
I really am not seeking your advice on the overall plan; please don't take
offense when I don't try to convince you it is worthwhile. I am asking
this list about the rpm packaging convention, and I would really like some
more feedback about that. (The answer about symlinks was very helpful.)
Thanks,
Roland
16 years, 9 months
Mising today's meeting
by Toshio Kuratomi
Hey all,
I'm travelling today and most likely will be in the air during today's
packaging meeting.
-Toshio
16 years, 9 months
[Vote] Multiple version naming overly restrictive
by Toshio Kuratomi
We didn't have quorum in the Fedora Packaging Meeting but we did discuss
the proposal[1]_ to relax the guidelines for packages with multiple
versions. After some discussion it was decided that restricting the
maintainer too much is not desirable. Some points:
* Guideline was written in the present manner to avoid confusion
* Using compat-* as a namespace for all less than current libraries has
the following disadvantages over [name][version]:
* cvs history won't follow the compat-* even though it is arguably
closer to the original package than the upgraded one.
* BuildRequires would have to be changed between branches to
accommodate the compat-* on the newer branch.
I'd like to have votes on relaxing the guidelines as follows:
'''
For many reasons, it is sometimes advantageous to keep multiple versions
of a package in Fedora to be installed simultaneously. When doing so,
the package name should reflect this fact. One package should use the
base name with no versions and all other addons should note their
version in the name.
'''
This gives the maintainer the leeway to choose whether the package is
best served by having the latest version carry the unadorned name
forward or the previous version.
[1]_:
https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-packaging/2007-June/msg00182.html
-Toshio
16 years, 9 months