Re: rpms/stardict/F-7 stardict.spec,1.29,1.30
by Ralf Corsepius
On Tue, 2007-06-26 at 22:34 -0400, Hu Zheng wrote:
> Author: zhu
>
> Update of /cvs/pkgs/rpms/stardict/F-7
> In directory cvs-int.fedora.redhat.com:/tmp/cvs-serv26607/F-7
> Index: stardict.spec
> ===================================================================
> RCS file: /cvs/pkgs/rpms/stardict/F-7/stardict.spec,v
> retrieving revision 1.29
> retrieving revision 1.30
> diff -u -r1.29 -r1.30
> --- stardict.spec 22 Jun 2007 05:17:06 -0000 1.29
> +++ stardict.spec 27 Jun 2007 02:33:26 -0000 1.30
> @@ -45,11 +45,11 @@
> %doc %{_datadir}/man/man1/stardict.1*
1. This %doc is superfluous. rpm automatically marks mans as %doc
2. You should use %{_mandir} instead of %{_datadir}/man
Ralf
16 years, 10 months
A few questions on CVS content
by Christian Iseli
Hi folks,
I have 3 questions/requests:
1. could a CVS admin please remove the
isorelax-0-0.1.release20050331.1jpp.1.src.rpm directory ?
It's certainly a mistake...
2. What is the status of the postgis package ? It has no entry in
owners.list, and has not been built for Fedora 7. The last ChangeLog
is from Devrim GUNDUZ on Wed Jan 3 2007...
3. What is the status of the tdma package ? It seems to be an EL-only
package, and has no owners.list entry either... I didn't know we had
EL-only packages...
Bonus question: what should we do in the devel directory of OLPC-only
packages ? Put some kind of non-fedora.package file, similarly to the
dead.package file, to avoid branching when new fedora releases are
created ?
Cheers,
C
16 years, 10 months
Fedora Package Status of Jun 26, 2007
by Christian Iseli
Hi folks,
Hot of the press... It is still pretty painful updating the wiki
pages. Took longer than 15 minutes between the time I pushed the "Save
Changes" button until the browser started to display the updated page
in the case of the PackageMaintainers/PackageStatus/OpenBugs page...
I agree they are kinda big, but still: that seems very long.
Enjoy,
C
====
Fedora Package Status of Jun 26, 2007
The full report can be found here:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/PackageStatus
Owners file stats:
- 4637 packages
- 7641 binary rpms in devel
- 108 orphans
- 56 packages not available in devel or release
Axel dot Thimm at ATrpms dot net vtkdata
Axel dot Thimm at ATrpms dot net vtk
andreas at bawue dot net perl-HTML-CalendarMonthSimple
andreas at bawue dot net ddrescue
andreas at bawue dot net perl-NetAddr-IP
arnd at arndb dot de dtc
arozansk at redhat dot com edac-utils
bdpepple at ameritech dot net galago-filesystem
bdpepple at ameritech dot net gaim-galago
bnocera at redhat dot com gnome-launch-box
cgoorah at yahoo dot com dot au netgen
cweyl at alumni dot drew dot edu perl-Text-RecordParser
cweyl at alumni dot drew dot edu gaim-gaym
dbhole at redhat dot com dom2-core-tests
dbhole at redhat dot com objectweb-anttask
foolish at guezz dot net perl-Net-Packet
foolish at guezz dot net perl-SQLite-Simple
gauret at free dot fr pdftohtml
gnome at dux-linux dot org mrxvt
green at redhat dot com ws-common-utils
i at stingr dot net roundup
icon at fedoraproject dot org mod_evasive
jafo at tummy dot com python-mechanoid
jafo at tummy dot com python-memcached
jmp at safe dot ca clement
johnp at redhat dot com GConf2-dbus
jorton at redhat dot com libc-client
lxtnow at gmail dot com gshutdown
mastahnke at gmail dot com epel-release
mastahnke at gmail dot com php-magpierss
mhalcrow at us dot ibm dot com ecryptfs-utils
mpg at redhat dot com olpc-hardware-manager
mpg at redhat dot com sugar
mpg at redhat dot com sugar-presence-service
mpg at redhat dot com xulrunner
mpg at redhat dot com sugar-artwork
mpg at redhat dot com sugar-datastore
mpg at redhat dot com hulahop
mpg at redhat dot com xapian-core
mpg at redhat dot com pyxapian
mpg at redhat dot com xapian-bindings
mwringe at redhat dot com jrexx
paul at all-the-johnsons dot co dot uk XaraLX
paul at all-the-johnsons dot co dot uk mysql-connector-net
pcheung at redhat dot com asm2
pertusus at free dot fr ivman
pvrabec at redhat dot com rsyslog
rvokal at redhat dot com gaim-guifications
splinux at fedoraproject dot org drapes
sundaram at redhat dot com olpc-utils
vivekl at redhat dot com saxon8
vivekl at redhat dot com classpathx-jaxp
wjhns174 at hardakers dot net perl-Crypt-OpenSSL-DSA
xgl-maint at redhat dot com xorg-x11-drv-vermilion
yufanyufan at gmail dot com audacious-plugins-docklet
zhu at redhat dot com stardict-dic
- 2 packages not available in devel but present in release
caolanm at redhat dot com hunspell-he
jorton at redhat dot com newt-perl
- 9 packages which have not yet been FE-ACCEPT'd...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/buglist.cgi?bug_id=222191,232702,232...
eclipse bkonrath at redhat.com
perl-Compress-Raw-Bzip2 steve at silug.org
perl-IO-Compress-Bzip2 steve at silug.org
ddrescue splinux25 at gmail.com
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/buglist.cgi?bug_id=221717,224458,231...
agg caolanm at redhat.com
libsilc wtogami at redhat.com
cyrus-imapd tjanouse at redhat.com
apr jorton at redhat.com
gnome-password-generator debarshi.ray at gmail.com
- 3 packages present in the development repo which have no owners entry
audacious-docklet s390utils ws-commons-util
- 19 orphaned packages, yet available in devel
docbook-dtds docbook-simple docbook-slides docbook-style-dsssl
docbook-style-xsl docbook-utils driftnet gnome-bluetooth gob2 libbtctl
libedit linuxdoc-tools luks-tools openjade opensp pam_usb udftools
xmltex xmlto
FE-ACCEPT packages stats:
- 2731 accepted, closed package reviews
- 43 accepted, closed package reviews not in repo
- 7 accepted, closed package reviews not in owners
- 91 accepted, open package reviews older than 4 weeks;
- 122 accepted, open package reviews with a package already in the repo
FE-REVIEW packages stats:
- 235 open tickets
- 81 tickets with no activity in eight weeks
- 22 tickets with no activity in four weeks
- 16 closed tickets
FE-NEW packages stats:
- 932 open tickets
- 716 tickets with no activity in eight weeks
- 47 tickets with no activity in four weeks
FE-NEEDSPONSOR packages stats:
- 47 open tickets
- 4 tickets with no activity in eight weeks
- 4 tickets with no activity in four weeks
FE-LEGAL packages stats:
- 2 open tickets
- 1 tickets with no activity in eight weeks
OPEN-BUGS packages stats:
- 8092 open tickets
- 5173 tickets with no activity in eight weeks
- 862 tickets with no activity in four weeks
CVS stats:
- 4642 packages with a devel directory
- 4 packages with no owners entry
isorelax-0-0.1.release20050331.1jpp.1.src.rpm mysql-administrator
postgis tdma
- 201 packages were dropped from Fedora
Maintainers stats:
- 391 maintainers
- 2 inactive maintainers with open bugs
- 4 inactive maintainers
Dropped Fedora packages:
- 4 packages were dropped since Fedora 7
Comps.xml files stats:
- 2408 packages in comps-f8 file
- 1007 packages missing from comps-f8 file
- 32 packages in comps-f8 but not in repo
- 2388 packages in comps-f7 file
- 980 packages missing from comps-f7 file
- 30 packages in comps-f7 but not in repo
16 years, 10 months
Fedora Core Merge Reviews
by Brian Pepple
Hi,
One of the items still left to do with regard to the recent merging of
Core & Extras is the reviews on packages that previously were in Core.
FESCo has been trying to determine what type of goal we should set for
completion by F8 test 2. Most of us felt that it wasn't a reasonable
goal to finish them all by that time, since there are more that 700
still needing to be completed.
I'm looking for suggestions from the community on what you think is a
reasonable number or percentage of reviews to complete by F8t2.
Thanks,
/B
--
Brian Pepple <bpepple(a)fedoraproject.org>
gpg --keyserver pgp.mit.edu --recv-keys 810CC15E
BD5E 6F9E 8688 E668 8F5B CBDE 326A E936 810C C15E
16 years, 10 months
Packaging guidelines: Directory ownership clarification
by Tom Callaway
Guidelines change:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines
The following addendum was made to the FileAndDirectoryOwnership
section:
Another exception for directory ownership in packages is when there is
no clear dependency hierarchy.
An example:
Foo-Animal-Emu puts files into /usr/share/Foo/Animal/Emu
Foo-Animal-Llama puts files into /usr/share/Foo/Animal/Llama
Neither package depends on the other one. Neither package depends on any
other package which owns the /usr/share/Foo/Animal/ directory. In this
case, each package must own the /usr/share/Foo/Animal/ directory.
~spot
_______________________________________________
Fedora-devel-announce mailing list
Fedora-devel-announce(a)redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-announce
16 years, 10 months
FC6 -> F7 (90%) success story
by Jarosław Górny
Hi,
Two days ago I've upgraded FC6 to F7 using yum.
The whole process went smoothly - far better than previous one (from FC5 to
FC6). No conflicts, "dependency hell" or sth. like that.
Just "yum update" and _almost_ everything works OK.
Finally, thanks to new 'intel' xorg driver, I don't have to use 915resolution
hack to get native resolution (1680x1050) - very nice!
One thing that doesn't work is iwl3945 module.
No wireless-led, no possibility to turn on the radio (with [Fn]+[F2] as well
as with echo 0 > /sys/*/rf_kill).
This issue is 240116@bugzilla I think.
So as for now I'm stuck with atrpm's ipw3945 driver (with regulatory daemon)
which eventually is not as bad ;)
Another small "issue" is that new kde has changed some of preferences (session
management, toolbar applets settings, etc.) - but it took me 5 minutes to
restore them.
thanks all of You for new Fedora, it rocks!
J.
my hardware:
* Dell Inspiron E1505 (aka 6400) laptop
* CPU: Centrino Duo T2400
* chipset: ICH7
* GFX: 945GM
* SND: Intel HDA (STAC92xx Analog)
* wireless: 3945ABG
--
Jaroslaw Gorny
16 years, 10 months
F7 && Firewire?
by Chris Weyl
Hey all--
I'm thinking about upgrading my main workstation to F7; however I I
haven't been following things very closely for the last couple weeks.
Are there still issues that would reasonably preclude my upgrading?
(Not being able to burn DVD's or use my iPod counts :))
Thanks-
-Chris
--
Chris Weyl
Ex astris, scientia
16 years, 10 months
Inconsistent package tags
by n0dalus
Hi all,
On my rawhide system, I noticed that there are a lot of packages with
inconsistent tags. There are (numbers in brackets are for packages
built in the past 14 days):
- 369 (216) packages with fc8 in the release tag (shouldn't we be using f8?)
- 354 (1) packages with fc7 in the release tag
- 205 (27) packages with no fedora version in the release tag
- 42 (0) packages with fc6 in the release tag
- 465 (0) packages with Vendor: Red Hat, Inc
- 431 (244) packages with Vendor: Fedora Project
- 74 (0) packages with Vendor: Koji
- 465 (0) packages with Packager: Red Hat, Inc.
<http://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla>
- 363 (244) packages with Packager: Fedora Project
- 74 (0) packages with Packager: Koji
- 68 (0) packages with Packager: Fedora Project
<http://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla>
- 437 (244) packages with Distribution: Unknown
- 369 (0) packages with Distribution: Red Hat (FC-7)
- 90 (0) packages with Distribution: Red Hat (FC-6)
- 68 (0) packages with Distribution: Fedora Extras
- 6 (0) packages with Distribution: (none)
- 759 (243) packages with Signature: (none)
- 81 (0) packages with Signature: fd372689897da07a (Red Hat Beta?)
- 72 (1) packages with Signature: b44269d04f2a6fd2 (Fedora?)
- 58 (0) packages with Signature: 82ed95041ac70ce6 (Extras?)
Obviously a lot of these packages haven't gone through the build
system of late, but even the ones that have still show a few
inconsistencies. Is this something that is being worked on?
n0dalus.
16 years, 10 months