FWD: orphaning curlftpfs , mod_auth_shadow
by Kevin Fenzi
I'm forwarding this for David Anderson:
From: David Anderson <fedora-packaging(a)dw-perspective.org.uk>
To: fedora-devel-list(a)redhat.com
Subject: Orphaning curlftpfs , mod_auth_shadow
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2010 11:22:25 +0000
User-Agent: KMail/1.12.4 (Linux/2.6.31.6-166.fc12.x86_64; KDE/4.3.4; x86_64; ;)
Greetings,
Due to a slow African Internet connection and ever-growing
responsibilities, I regret that I have to and am orphanning these two
packages:
curlftpfs - mount FTP filesystems via FUSE and curl
mod_auth_shadow - Apache authentication via /etc/shadow
There are a couple of open bugs for curlftpfs which I said I'd fix by
upgrading to the latest version, but it's so long since I used the
system and I'm battling with the accounts system, expired certificates.
Both these packages I originally packaged because I wanted to use them.
I'd have thought that they'd both have many users.
Many thanks,
David
14 years
License change: swarp
by Sergio Pascual
Hi all:
the new version of swarp in rawhide (2.17.6) will have a CeCILL
license. Previously, swarp was distributed under GPLv2
Regards
14 years
intent to retire: kudzu
by Bill Nottingham
I'd like to retire kudzu for F-13.
Why?
- There are places where it almost certainly does not work with current kernels
- It's so deprecated that one of its replacements (HAL) has since been
frozen and deprecated
- Given that, its upstream is very dead
However, it is still being required by two programs:
- hwbrowser
- fwfstab
If someone wants to keep it limping along for thsese two programs I can
orphan it. But I'd really rather just retire it.
Bill
14 years
RPM packaging workshop example
by Rahul Sundaram
Hi,
For the purpose of doing a RPM packaging workshop, I need a simple clear
hello world type example using autotools. Can anyone point me to
something suitable for the purpose?
Rahul
14 years, 1 month
Upstream bugs vs. Fedora bugs: KDE people do it wrong
by Christoph Wickert
I am irritated by the way the KDE SIG and the KDE bugzappers handle
bugs. For most bugs that are reported they demand the reporter to file
an upstream bug report at bugs.kde.org and set the bug to NEEDINFO. If
the reporter doesn't respond, the bug is closed NOTABUG or WONTFIX. But
if the bug has been reported upstream, the Fedora bug gets closed
UPSTREAM. Ether way, the bug gets closed, no matter if it was actually
fixed or not.
IMHO filing bugs upstream is a maintainers duty. We are doing the same
in Xfce or I do the same with all my packages. The only exception I make
are feature requests, because I cannot support a request that I don't
understand or that I am not convinced of. The use of a feature should be
discussed upstream with the developers because they are in no way
specific to the distribution, but bugs that affect Fedora need to be
tracked in Fedora.
The wiki says:
> Deal with reported bugs in a timely manner
> * [...]
> * If there are bugs which you aren't capable of fixing yourself
> because they deal with intricacies of the source code which
> you don't fully understand, then you still need to address
> these bugs. It can be helpful to work with the upstream
> maintainer of the code, obtain help from more code-oriented
> people on fedora-devel, or check other distributions for
> patches. Always be sure to post to the bug report what you
> have done so that the reporter knows what it happening and
> what to expect. It is recommended that non-coder packagers
> should find co-maintainers who are familiar with the
> programming language used by their package(s), and can help
> with such bugs as a kind of 'second line support'.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_maintainer_responsibilities#Deal_w...
The Fedora KDE maintainers and bugzappers already have a KDE bugzilla
account, while most of our users don't. Thus it is easier for them to
file the bug than it is for the user. The maintainer has to act as a
proxy between the reporter and the developer.
By closing down the bugs, our bugzilla is effectively rendered useless
because there is no way of searching for bugs that affect our KDE
packages. Bugzilla is for tracking bugs, not for blindly closing bug
reports no matter if they are fixed or not!
I'd like the KDE SIG and their bugzappers to reconsider their policy:
1. Forward bugs to the upstream developers
2. Leave bugs open until they are fixed upstream and in Fedora
Regards,
Christoph
14 years, 1 month
Help needed: patching EMBOSS to use system pcre, expat and zlib
by Julian Sikorski
Hello,
EMBOSS 6.2.0 bundles zlib, expat and pcre. In the previous version, I
got help from a fellow packager to patch the pcre out, but that patch no
longer works. Thus, I'd like to ask for help in solving this problem,
which is unfortunately beyond my skills.
Ideally, I'd gladly accept a co-maintainer for this bioinformatics suite.
I have built the package with bundled libs for devel for the time being,
so that potential helpers have access to the latest spec file.
Regards,
Julian
14 years, 1 month
bug no: 552456 E620 not detected - 2nd Request
by Steven James Drinnan
Hi all,
I am trying to get my k3715 to work in F12 or F13. I have filled this
bug report https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=552456 . It
reports by dmesg as a E620.
The modem works fine in F11 with no usb_modeswitch. But by default the
CD Rom and Memory card a re disabled by default.
In F12 and F13 the option driver reports a callback error of 108. But
the CD Rom and Memory card are enabled. I tried usb_modeswitch. but this
has no effect.
In searching this seem to be Linux. wide problem across all
distributions. And some distributions say that it is fixed. (not
confirmed)
See my bug report for more details.
I am just trying to get this long standing problem fixed. Any help that
I can be please ask.
Steven Drinnan
14 years, 1 month
Re: Upstream bugs vs. Fedora bugs: KDE people do it wrong
by Oliver Falk
I had similar issues already and I totally agree with Christoph!
The maintainer should not redirect the bugreporter to the upstream bugreporting plattform. I already have plenty of accounts on upstream bugzillas because of exactly this...
-of
Christoph Wickert <christoph.wickert(a)googlemail.com> schrieb:
>I am irritated by the way the KDE SIG and the KDE bugzappers handle
>bugs. For most bugs that are reported they demand the reporter to file
>an upstream bug report at bugs.kde.org and set the bug to NEEDINFO. If
>the reporter doesn't respond, the bug is closed NOTABUG or WONTFIX. But
>if the bug has been reported upstream, the Fedora bug gets closed
>UPSTREAM. Ether way, the bug gets closed, no matter if it was actually
>fixed or not.
>
>IMHO filing bugs upstream is a maintainers duty. We are doing the same
>in Xfce or I do the same with all my packages. The only exception I make
>are feature requests, because I cannot support a request that I don't
>understand or that I am not convinced of. The use of a feature should be
>discussed upstream with the developers because they are in no way
>specific to the distribution, but bugs that affect Fedora need to be
>tracked in Fedora.
>
>The wiki says:
>> Deal with reported bugs in a timely manner
>> * [...]
>> * If there are bugs which you aren't capable of fixing yourself
>> because they deal with intricacies of the source code which
>> you don't fully understand, then you still need to address
>> these bugs. It can be helpful to work with the upstream
>> maintainer of the code, obtain help from more code-oriented
>> people on fedora-devel, or check other distributions for
>> patches. Always be sure to post to the bug report what you
>> have done so that the reporter knows what it happening and
>> what to expect. It is recommended that non-coder packagers
>> should find co-maintainers who are familiar with the
>> programming language used by their package(s), and can help
>> with such bugs as a kind of 'second line support'.
>
>https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_maintainer_responsibilities#Deal_w...
>
>The Fedora KDE maintainers and bugzappers already have a KDE bugzilla
>account, while most of our users don't. Thus it is easier for them to
>file the bug than it is for the user. The maintainer has to act as a
>proxy between the reporter and the developer.
>
>By closing down the bugs, our bugzilla is effectively rendered useless
>because there is no way of searching for bugs that affect our KDE
>packages. Bugzilla is for tracking bugs, not for blindly closing bug
>reports no matter if they are fixed or not!
>
>I'd like the KDE SIG and their bugzappers to reconsider their policy:
> 1. Forward bugs to the upstream developers
> 2. Leave bugs open until they are fixed upstream and in Fedora
>
>Regards,
>Christoph
>
>--
>devel mailing list
>devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
14 years, 1 month