OTRS and Fedora
by Jos Vos
Hi,
What is the reason that OTRS has been removed from Fedora since F8?
Thanks,
--
-- Jos Vos <jos(a)xos.nl>
-- X/OS Experts in Open Systems BV | Phone: +31 20 6938364
-- Amsterdam, The Netherlands | Fax: +31 20 6948204
15 years, 4 months
FC9: mock -r fedora-rawhide-i386 init fails
by Ralf Corsepius
Hi,
Since this morning, initializing fedora-rawhide-i386 mock chroots fail
for me on FC9:
# mock -r fedora-rawhide-i386 init
INFO: mock.py version 0.9.9 starting...
...
ERROR: Command failed:
# /usr/bin/yum --installroot /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-i386/root/
groupinstall buildsys-build
...
/bin/sh: error while loading shared libraries: libtinfo.so.5: cannot
open shared object file: No such file or directory
error: %post(bash-3.2-28.fc10.i386) scriptlet failed, exit status 127
...
I am able to reproduce this error on different fedora-9-i386 and
fedora-9-x86_64 machines.
For whatever reason, so far, on fedora-9-x86_64, "mock -r
fedora-rawhide-x86_64 init" doesn't fail, nor have I encountered this
error on a fedora-rawhide-i386/fedora-9.92-i386 test-machine.
Ralf
15 years, 4 months
Strange ext3 problem
by Joshua C.
I put this for discussion here
http://forums.fedoraforum.org/showthread.php?t=202573 and got no
helpful comments, so i put it here on the devel list.
Short description:
When copying and moving files bigger than ~ 100 mb I get different
sha1 sums between the copy and the original file. Once I issued the
sha1 sommand 2 consequitive times on one and the same file and got 2
(!!!) different results. This is impossible!
I tested the hdd with smartmontools (short and long tests) and got no
errors of any kind. then used fsck and e2fsck on the partition and
they corrected something. I thought the problem was gone but here it
happens again.
Maybe I should file a bug report. but against what? ext3? Any ideas
what this can be?
--joshua
15 years, 5 months
Fedora 8 and 9 updates re-enabled
by Jesse Keating
In a few hours, updates for Fedora 8 and Fedora 9 will start hitting
mirrors. These updates are designed to transition users from our old
repo locations to new locations that have all our updates re-signed with
a new set of keys.
Most users will simply need to apply the offered updates, and later
apply any further updates, and verify/import the new GPG key.
The process to getting new updates is two stage.
Stage 1) Users configured to get updates from existing repos will see a
small set of updates available in the next few hours/days. These
updates include fedora-release, PackageKit, gnome-packagekit, and unique
(for Fedora 8, only fedora-release is offered). These updates should be
applied as soon as possible.
Stage 2) Once the above updates have been applied, your update tools
(yum, PackageKit, pirut) will see a new repository and a larger set of
updates available. This is your new standard flow of updates, that will
continue to see new updates as the lifetime of Fedora 8 and 9 progress.
There will be further milestones in the future that involve redirection
of release package repos to match that of updates, and removing of old
gpg key from rpm trust.
For more details and an FAQ, please see
https://fedoraproject.org/w/index.php?title=Enabling_new_signing_key
--
Jesse Keating
Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature!
identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating
_______________________________________________
Fedora-devel-announce mailing list
Fedora-devel-announce(a)redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-announce
15 years, 5 months
kernel-devel in "Fedora" spin?
by Jesse Keating
Back in December, I had made a change that blocked kernel-devel packages
from winding up in the install media for the Fedora spin. I don't
recall getting any push back at the time, but I've gotten at least one
angry comment since then. So I'm putting it out for more discussion.
Do we feel that the kernel-devel (5~megs) should be in the install
media?
--
Jesse Keating
Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature!
identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating
15 years, 5 months
[LONG] The fonts SIG irregular status report
by Nicolas Mailhot
Hi all,
I haven't been too active on the SIG lately for lack of free time.
However others (who rock) have been busy working on fonts packages, so
here is a long delayed status update that will try to clear the backlog:
▪▪ General status
— We have 56 entries in the wishlist. Even counting entries the packager
forgot to recategorize (grrr) I think the wishlist is still growing
faster than we package fonts. More active packagers are obviously
needed.
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Category:Font_wishlist
— We have 58 entries in the packaged list.
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Category:Packaged_fonts
It is still nicely growing, and Fedora 9 level reviews like this one are
already obsolete
http://www.advogato.org/person/yosch/diary.html?start=4
— We've created 55 new packages since the start of the cycle (a wishlist
entry can translate in several packages). That's pretty awesome and way
past the 32 packages mark of the last report (and way past previous
Fedora cycle accomplishments). Special kuddos to Dennis Jang for
packaging the huge UN Korean font set (though he needs to update his
wiki pages). Others didn't attain the level of awesomeness of Dennis but
still did pretty well.
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_inclusion_history
▪▪ Package status
▪▪▪ Packaged, with bugs still open:
— sportrop-fonts,
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=456345
— asana-math-fonts,
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=455153
— icelandic-fonts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=445261
⇒ Packagers please close your review bugs when the packaging is
finished.
▪▪▪ Packaged, but not referenced in Fedora 10 comps
— myanmar3-unicode-fonts
That was short :) most packagers seem to apply
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Comps_fonts_rules
without prodding on my part. Good job and please fix this one.
▪▪▪ Packaged, with wiki page not finalized or missing
— thibault-fonts-essays1743,
— thibault-fonts-isabella,
— thibault-fonts-rockets,
— thibault-fonts-staypuft,
— un-fonts,
— un-extra-fonts,
— icelandic-fonts
— smc-fonts
– darkgarden-fonts
– sportrop-fonts
— myanmar3-unicode-fonts
⇒ Please make sure each font package has a completed wiki page (Packaged
fonts category) that can be used by the docs team in release notes and
other documents
▪▪▪ Reviewed fonts waiting for packager action
— bitstream-vera-fonts (old FE-MERGE ticket, needs someone to help
Behdad co-maintain the package)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225618
— sil-gentium-basic-fonts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=456527
— hiran-perizia-fonts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=457709
— cf-bonveno-fonts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=457955
— arabeyes-thabit-fonts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=461139
— arabeyes-mothana-fonts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=462711
— alee-fonts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=466193
— hiran-rufscript-fonts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=467507
⇒ You know what you need to do
▪▪▪ Approved fonts not pushed yet
— unikurd-fonts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=457281
▪▪▪ Waiting for a reviewer
— heuristica-fonts (just cleared by FE-LEGAL)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=452317
— oldstandard-fonts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=457947
(not an easy font to package and not baked yet IMHO. I put some
comments in the bug but didn't start formal review, so this one is still
open)
⇒ We need some reviewers. I can't review every single font package out
there (especially since I'm not allowed to review my own).
In other news more interesting material was added to the SIG wiki and a
guideline change on fontconfig file location is still proceeding. And
the big F11 package renaming is still planned, I just don't have the
energy left to write about it.
I hope you liked this report. It took a lot of work to be written. If
you want some changes in the next edition, just ping me.
Regards,
--
Nicolas Mailhot
15 years, 5 months
