I just had to setup a new machine, and new ssh keys.
I chose my new id_rsa.pub to upload.
But I get:
git push --verbose
Pushing to ssh://email@example.com/mercurial
Permission denied (publickey).
fatal: The remote end hung up unexpectedly
the current xine-lib maintainer speaking. :-)
The Xine project:
has recently released a new major version, version 1.2.0.
Unfortunately, among the list of changes:
there are these new "features":
* Use libavutil-provided implementations for CRC, SHA1 and BASE64 algorithms,
this makes use of libavutil even outside the FFmpeg decoding plugin,
but avoid duplication of algorithms between different plugins.
* Use av_mallocz() when xine_xmalloc_aligned() wouldn't be needed.
* FFmpeg is now required as an external dependency; if you want to build
xine-lib from source, please download a copy of FFmpeg from their SVN
which basically mean that xine-lib now has a global, non-optional dependency
on FFmpeg's libavutil library.
So there are 4 possible ways forward:
(a) Stick with 1.1.x forever. I don't think that's a good idea in the long
run, upstream won't be providing security fixes for the old branch forever.
(b) Package libavutil (and only libavutil) from FFmpeg in Fedora. (I don't
think libavutil, as opposed to libavcodec, is actually patent-encumbered,
though that'd also have to be checked.) The issue there is that FFmpeg
upstream obviously doesn't support this. It would need some more black
packaging magic of the kind already done in xine-lib, and more legal
auditing. I don't think I want to investigate going down that road.
(c) Bundle parts or all of libavutil with xine-lib. Yuck!!!
(d) Move the whole thing (back) to RPM Fusion (where it originally was, before
we started needing xine-lib for Amarok and Phonon, which both no longer
use it). It would go to the Free section, of course.
My proposal is to go with (d).
The following packages currently depend on xine-lib:
* (k9copy – already in RPM Fusion, not affected)
* kaffeine (my package, the reason why I maintain xine-lib in the first place)
These packages would have to move to RPM Fusion along with xine-lib.
In Kaffeine's case, upstream is switching from xine-lib to MPlayer in their git
repository, so it will likely have to move to RPM Fusion sooner or later
anyway. This means the affected packages are basically *xine*.
So my plan is to retire (for my packages, resp. have the respective maintainer
retire) the listed packages in Fedora for Fedora ≥ 17 and get (or have the
respective maintainer get) them into RPM Fusion Free instead. (I'd take care
of xine-lib and kaffeine myself, I hope the maintainers of the other packages
will take care of them.)
This perplexing to me. In my %post section, I tried both writing
"GRUB_TIMEOUT=0" to /etc/default/grub and using sed to replace "set
timeout=5" in grub2.cfg. I even put a call to grub2-mkconfig to re-write the
config file after doing those things.
But on boot, grub.cfg file always contains timeout=5. Why / how is this
I'm using appliance-creator, in case that's doing anything silly.
Matthew Miller ☁☁☁ Fedora Cloud Architect ☁☁☁ <mattdm(a)fedoraproject.org>
one of the updates I am preparing is supposed to replace some of the
folders with symlinks. Unfortunately, this leads to rpm cpio: rename
errors upon an update attempt. Is there a standard way of dealing with this?
I would be willing to swap a review of vdr-markad  in rpmfusion for another
review, be it RPM Fusion or Fedora, preferably not something overly
complex. Feel free to contact me if you are interested.
Hey, folks. It's that time again - time to start thinking about Test
Days for Fedora 18.
For anyone who isn't aware, a Test Day is an event usually focused
around IRC for interaction and a Wiki page for instructions and results,
with the aim being to get a bunch of interested users and developers
together to test a specific feature or area of the distribution. You can
run a Test Day on just about anything for which it would be useful to do
some fairly focused testing in 'real time' with a group of testers; it
doesn't have to be code, for instance we often run Test Days for
l10n/i18n topics. For more information on Test Days, see
Anyone who wants to can host their own Test Day, or you can request that
the QA group helps you out with organization, or any combination of the
two. To propose a Test Day, just file a ticket in QA trac - full details
are at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA/Test_Days/Create . For
instructions on hosting a Test Day, see
You can see the schedule at
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA/Fedora_18_test_days . There are many
slots open right now, with the earliest on 2012-08-09 and the latest
2012-11-01. Consider the development schedule, though, in deciding when
you want to run your Test Day - for some topics you may want to avoid
the time before the Alpha release or the time after the feature freeze
or the Final freeze.
We normally aim to schedule Test Days on Thursdays; however, if you want
to run a series of related Test Days, it's often a good idea to do
something like Tuesday / Wednesday / Thursday of the same week (this is
how we usually run the X Test Week, for instance). If all the Thursday
slots fill up but more people want to run Test Days, we will open up
Tuesday slots as overflows. And finally, if you really want to run a
Test Day in a specific timeframe due to the development schedule, but
the Thursday slot for that week is full, we can add a slot on another
day. We're flexible! Just put in your ticket the date or timeframe you'd
like, and we'll figure it out from there.
If you have any questions about the Test Day process, please don't
hesitate to contact me or any other member of the QA team on test@ or in
#fedora-qa on IRC. Thanks!
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora
test-announce mailing list
Several months ago I attempted to upgrade libffi 3.0.10 to 3.0.11. The change was reverted because the soname change in this version of the library broke the build environment. I would still like to get 3.0.11 in Fedora. I don't anticipate any future ABI-breaking changes, and 3.0.12 will include additional ports like Aarch64, which is likely of interest to some Fedora developers. How do we coordinate a rebuild for dependent packages? Also, I assume this will have to wait 'til F18 is out (fine by me), but I'd like to deal with it early in the F19 cycle.