[opensuse-packaging] RC1 checkin deadline this week!!
Hi, We would like to release RC1 next week, but the current state of factory doesn't really make this obvious ;( There are tons of packages either failing to build or have unsubmitted changes in their devel projects or (even worse) have submits pending to their devel projects. Please everyone, check http://bit.ly/h6qHlO and look out for your projects and packages. Greetings, Stephan -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help@opensuse.org
Am Montag 31 Januar 2011, 13:09:55 schrieb Stephan Kulow:
Hi,
We would like to release RC1 next week, but the current state of factory doesn't really make this obvious ;(
There are tons of packages either failing to build or have unsubmitted changes in their devel projects or (even worse) have submits pending to their devel projects.
Please everyone, check http://bit.ly/h6qHlO and look out for your projects and packages.
Greetings, Stephan
I'm a little bit confused now. I just checked https://build.opensuse.org/project/packages?package=&project=openSUSE%3AFact... and found virtually no php pear library packages in the factory (with about 30 pear packages of mine in queue for submission). Didn't I get some change of policy or is this really the current state? Are users expected to include server:php:application per default if they use PHP stuff? How can I verify I have all dependencies of dependencies already submitted? Is there any tool? Greetings, Ralf -- Ralf Lang Linux Consultant / Developer B1 Systems GmbH Osterfeldstraße 7 / 85088 Vohburg / http://www.b1-systems.de GF: Ralph Dehner / Unternehmenssitz: Vohburg / AG: Ingolstadt,HRB 3537 -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help@opensuse.org
On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 02:21:36PM +0100, Ralf Lang wrote:
Am Montag 31 Januar 2011, 13:09:55 schrieb Stephan Kulow:
Hi,
We would like to release RC1 next week, but the current state of factory doesn't really make this obvious ;(
There are tons of packages either failing to build or have unsubmitted changes in their devel projects or (even worse) have submits pending to their devel projects.
Please everyone, check http://bit.ly/h6qHlO and look out for your projects and packages.
Greetings, Stephan
I'm a little bit confused now. I just checked https://build.opensuse.org/project/packages?package=&project=openSUSE%3AFact... and found virtually no php pear library packages in the factory (with about 30 pear packages of mine in queue for submission). Didn't I get some change of policy or is this really the current state? Are users expected to include server:php:application per default if they use PHP stuff?
How can I verify I have all dependencies of dependencies already submitted? Is there any tool?
The pear packages are waiting for license review. The first time inclusion packages are not in coolos List. Ciao, Marcus -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help@opensuse.org
Am Montag, 31. Januar 2011 schrieb Ralf Lang:
How can I verify I have all dependencies of dependencies already submitted? Is there any tool?
What I do is creating a new project and link all submits into it - building agaisnt plan O:F Greetings, Stephan -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help@opensuse.org
On Mon, 31 Jan 2011 13:09:55 +0100 Stephan Kulow <coolo@suse.de> wrote:
There are tons of packages either failing to build or have unsubmitted changes in their devel projects or (even worse) have submits pending to their devel projects.
Linphone in the devel project has the problem, that apparently people are not happy with my patch (see https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=664808). This is why I did not yet submit it. (The current version in oS:F just segfaults on an incoming call, which is of course aesthetically much more pleasing ;)
Please everyone, check http://bit.ly/h6qHlO and look out for your projects
Having a real URL would be much nicer than some you-don't-know-where-it-leads URL. -- Stefan Seyfried "Dispatch war rocket Ajax to bring back his body!" -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help@opensuse.org
Am Montag, 31. Januar 2011 schrieb Stefan Seyfried:
On Mon, 31 Jan 2011 13:09:55 +0100
Stephan Kulow <coolo@suse.de> wrote:
There are tons of packages either failing to build or have unsubmitted changes in their devel projects or (even worse) have submits pending to their devel projects.
Linphone in the devel project has the problem, that apparently people are not happy with my patch (see https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=664808). This is why I did not yet submit it. (The current version in oS:F just segfaults on an incoming call, which is of course aesthetically much more pleasing ;) Hmm, I wonder why Dong Mao applies maintenance rules to 11.4 bugs ;(
Please everyone, check http://bit.ly/h6qHlO and look out for your projects
Having a real URL would be much nicer than some you-don't-know-where-it-leads URL.
I do that with URLs < 70 chars :) Greetings, Stephan -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help@opensuse.org
On 31/01/11 15:35, Stephan Kulow wrote:
Please everyone, check http://bit.ly/h6qHlO and look out for your projects
Having a real URL would be much nicer than some you-don't-know-where-it-leads URL.
I do that with URLs < 70 chars :)
You can have a short URL and at the same time know where it leads to: http://bit.ly/factory-status -- Best Regards / S pozdravom, Pavol RUSNAK SUSE LINUX, s.r.o openSUSE Boosters Team Lihovarska 1060/12 PGP 0xA6917144 19000 Praha 9 prusnak[at]opensuse.org Czech Republic -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help@opensuse.org
Am Montag, 31. Januar 2011 schrieb Pavol Rusnak:
On 31/01/11 15:35, Stephan Kulow wrote:
Please everyone, check http://bit.ly/h6qHlO and look out for your projects
Having a real URL would be much nicer than some you-don't-know-where-it-leads URL.
I do that with URLs < 70 chars :)
You can have a short URL and at the same time know where it leads to:
http://bit.ly/factory-status I guess this requires a login? I use a firefox addon to shorten.
Greetings, Stephan -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help@opensuse.org
On 31/01/11 16:12, Stephan Kulow wrote:
Am Montag, 31. Januar 2011 schrieb Pavol Rusnak:
On 31/01/11 15:35, Stephan Kulow wrote:
Please everyone, check http://bit.ly/h6qHlO and look out for your projects
Having a real URL would be much nicer than some you-don't-know-where-it-leads URL.
I do that with URLs < 70 chars :)
You can have a short URL and at the same time know where it leads to:
http://bit.ly/factory-status I guess this requires a login? I use a firefox addon to shorten.
Yes, bit.ly requires login to customize short URLs, but for instance is.gd does not (if your firefox addon supports this shortener). -- Best Regards / S pozdravom, Pavol RUSNAK SUSE LINUX, s.r.o openSUSE Boosters Team Lihovarska 1060/12 PGP 0xA6917144 19000 Praha 9 prusnak[at]opensuse.org Czech Republic -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help@opensuse.org
Stephan Kulow <coolo@suse.de> writes:
Am Montag, 31. Januar 2011 schrieb Stefan Seyfried:
Please everyone, check http://bit.ly/h6qHlO and look out for your projects
Having a real URL would be much nicer than some you-don't-know-where-it-leads URL.
+1
I do that with URLs < 70 chars :)
For the rest of us, who are using decent mail readers, please provide the real URL, too. -- Karl Eichwalder R&D / Documentation SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nuernberg) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help@opensuse.org
On Monday 31 January 2011 15:23:23 Stefan Seyfried wrote:
On Mon, 31 Jan 2011 13:09:55 +0100
Stephan Kulow <coolo@suse.de> wrote:
There are tons of packages either failing to build or have unsubmitted changes in their devel projects or (even worse) have submits pending to their devel projects.
Linphone in the devel project has the problem, that apparently people are not happy with my patch (see https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=664808). This is why I did not yet submit it. (The current version in oS:F just segfaults on an incoming call, which is of course aesthetically much more pleasing ;)
Therefore I've submitted 'yate', a Qt4-based SIP-client that actually doesn't crash (like Ekiga or linphone or sflphone-client-kde). -- Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Sascha Peilicke http://saschpe.wordpress.com
On Mon, 31 Jan 2011 16:26:20 +0100 Sascha Peilicke <saschpe@gmx.de> wrote:
Therefore I've submitted 'yate', a Qt4-based SIP-client that actually doesn't crash (like Ekiga or linphone or sflphone-client-kde).
Does linphone from network:telephony still crash for you? It certainly doesn't for me. But I won't complain about more choice :-) -- Stefan Seyfried "Dispatch war rocket Ajax to bring back his body!" -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help@opensuse.org
Hello, on Montag, 31. Januar 2011, Stephan Kulow wrote:
There are tons of packages either failing to build or have unsubmitted changes in their devel projects or (even worse) have submits pending to their devel projects.
I'm a bit surprised to see "Different sources in devel project" for patch2mail... The difference [1] is "only" the SUSE specfile header comment which was (automatically?) inserted when I submitted patch2mail to factory. Since I did not sign any copyright asssignment to SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, I will not take this header into the devel project to get the specfile in sync. You'll have to live with the difference ;-) OTOH, I propose not to sue you[2] for claiming copyright on a specfile you[2] never wrote ;-) That might sound like nitpicking (maybe it even is *g*), so let me summarize the points I have: - patch2mail is probably not the only package that has this header as only difference in the devel project (= false alarms) - please reconsider if this header makes sense nowadays. Given the fact that several packages are completely maintained by community members not employed by Novell/SUSE, I somehow doubt... (I know this might have to do with legal stuff, therefore CC'ing jw) Regards, Christian Boltz [1] https://build.opensuse.org/stage/package/rdiff?opackage=patch2mail&oproject=... [2] "you" as in "SUSE LINUX Products GmbH" -- [makeSUSEdvd] When it works, I will most likely hold a press conference or something, so people will be informed by CNN. :-) [houghi in opensuse] -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help@opensuse.org
On Monday 31 January 2011 22:48:13 Christian Boltz wrote:
That might sound like nitpicking (maybe it even is *g*), so let me summarize the points I have: - patch2mail is probably not the only package that has this header as only difference in the devel project (= false alarms) - please reconsider if this header makes sense nowadays. Given the fact that several packages are completely maintained by community members not employed by Novell/SUSE, I somehow doubt... (I know this might have to do with legal stuff, therefore CC'ing jw)
It's impossible to have files without copyright headers and if there are none, we put the default copyright in place. Of course we can make it a policy to only accept packages without copyright header - is that your suggestion? Greetings, Stephan -- Sent from openSUSE -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help@opensuse.org
Hello, on Dienstag, 1. Februar 2011, Stephan Kulow wrote:
On Monday 31 January 2011 22:48:13 Christian Boltz wrote:
- please reconsider if this header makes sense nowadays. Given the fact that several packages are completely maintained by community members not employed by Novell/SUSE, I somehow doubt...
It's impossible to have files without copyright headers and if there are none, we put the default copyright in place.
So if I put in something like ---------------------------------- (c) Christian Boltz 2010-2011 This spec file is licensed under GPL 2 or later. ---------------------------------- you will accept it?
Of course we can make it a policy to only accept packages without copyright header - is that your suggestion?
I suggest not to silently add a copyright header ;-) I'm not sure if a copyright/license header is needed at all for a specfile (IANAL). If it is required (and missing), I'd propose the same way as for missing COPYING file [1] etc. when submitting a package to factory: Open a bugreport, assign it to the submitter and ask him to add a copyright/license header to the specfile. Or (less paperwork) decline the SR and ask the submitter to add the copyright/license header and resubmit the package. Regards, Christian Boltz [1] I went through the "missing COPYING file" already for patch2mail - the COPYING file blew up the installed package size from 5k to 23k, but the package is legally bug-free now ;-) I should have chosen the WTFPL to have a shorter license text ;-)) -- | imicha@kira:~> /etc/init.d/glaskugel start | bash: /etc/init.d/glaskugel: Datei oder Verzeichnis nicht gefunden ist das ein grundsätzliches problem bei SuSE? oder fehlt mir ein RPM? [Michael Meyer in suse-linux] -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help@opensuse.org
On 02/02/2011 12:19 AM, Christian Boltz wrote:
Hello,
on Dienstag, 1. Februar 2011, Stephan Kulow wrote:
On Monday 31 January 2011 22:48:13 Christian Boltz wrote:
- please reconsider if this header makes sense nowadays. Given the fact that several packages are completely maintained by community members not employed by Novell/SUSE, I somehow doubt...
It's impossible to have files without copyright headers and if there are none, we put the default copyright in place.
So if I put in something like
---------------------------------- (c) Christian Boltz 2010-2011
This spec file is licensed under GPL 2 or later. ----------------------------------
you will accept it?
Of course we can make it a policy to only accept packages without copyright header - is that your suggestion?
I suggest not to silently add a copyright header ;-)
I'm not sure if a copyright/license header is needed at all for a specfile (IANAL).
If it is required (and missing), I'd propose the same way as for missing COPYING file [1] etc. when submitting a package to factory: Open a bugreport, assign it to the submitter and ask him to add a copyright/license header to the specfile. Or (less paperwork) decline the SR and ask the submitter to add the copyright/license header and resubmit the package.
Regards,
Christian Boltz
[1] I went through the "missing COPYING file" already for patch2mail - the COPYING file blew up the installed package size from 5k to 23k, but the package is legally bug-free now ;-) I should have chosen the WTFPL to have a shorter license text ;-))
Why don't you suggest to our friend Jorge (hope he doesn't spam this list ) that he dual license with WTFPL. Dave P -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help@opensuse.org
On Feb 02, 11 00:41:04 +0200, Dave Plater wrote:
the COPYING file blew up the installed package size from 5k to 23k, but the package is legally bug-free now ;-) I should have chosen the WTFPL to have a shorter license text ;-))
That is unfortunate. But on behalf of the legal team, receive my thanks for adding the COPYING file. :-) cheers, JW- -- o \ Juergen Weigert paint it green! __/ _=======.=======_ <V> | jw@suse.de back to ascii! __/ _---|____________\/ \ | 0911 74053-508 __/ (____/ /\ (/) | _____________________________/ _/ \_ vim:set sw=2 wm=8 SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nuernberg) SuSE. Supporting Linux since 1992. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help@opensuse.org
On Tue, 1 Feb 2011 23:19:40 +0100 Christian Boltz <opensuse@cboltz.de> wrote:
I should have chosen the WTFPL to have a shorter license text ;-))
WTFPL V2 plus warranty disclaimer :-P -- Stefan Seyfried "Dispatch war rocket Ajax to bring back his body!" -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help@opensuse.org
On Tuesday 01 February 2011 23:19:40 Christian Boltz wrote:
Hello,
on Dienstag, 1. Februar 2011, Stephan Kulow wrote:
On Monday 31 January 2011 22:48:13 Christian Boltz wrote:
- please reconsider if this header makes sense nowadays. Given the fact
that several packages are completely maintained by community members not employed by Novell/SUSE, I somehow doubt...
It's impossible to have files without copyright headers and if there are none, we put the default copyright in place.
So if I put in something like
---------------------------------- (c) Christian Boltz 2010-2011
This spec file is licensed under GPL 2 or later.
Only if you've read and follow the GPLv2 - and I doubt you want it for spec files if you've read it. Greetings, Stephan -- Sent from openSUSE -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help@opensuse.org
Hello, on Mittwoch, 2. Februar 2011, Stephan Kulow wrote:
On Tuesday 01 February 2011 23:19:40 Christian Boltz wrote:
So if I put in something like
---------------------------------- (c) Christian Boltz 2010-2011
This spec file is licensed under GPL 2 or later.
Only if you've read and follow the GPLv2 - and I doubt you want it for spec files if you've read it.
Hmmm, now it becomes funny ;-) The default SUSE specfile header says "the same license as for the pristine package itself" - so actually a large portion of the spec files in openSUSE _are_ already GPL-licensed (on my system rpm -qa gives me about 30% "GPL v2+"). And now you tell me GPL isn't a good / recommended license for specfiles? ;-) (That said: it's been a while since I read the GPL - which detail are you talking about?) Regards, Christian Boltz -- Bin so kurz davor, den Rechner am MausKabel aus dem Fenster zu hängen und ihm ein letztes drohendes "BOOTE!" an den Kopf zu werfen. Aber ich glaub, das zieht nicht - bin nur im Erdgeschoß ;) [Anatol Schirmer in suse-linux] -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help@opensuse.org
On 01/02/11 07:44, Stephan Kulow wrote:
It's impossible to have files without copyright headers and if there are none, we put the default copyright in place.
[citation needed] -- Best Regards / S pozdravom, Pavol RUSNAK SUSE LINUX, s.r.o openSUSE Boosters Team Lihovarska 1060/12 PGP 0xA6917144 19000 Praha 9 prusnak[at]opensuse.org Czech Republic -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help@opensuse.org
2011/1/31 Stephan Kulow <coolo@suse.de>:
There are tons of packages either failing to build or have unsubmitted changes in their devel projects or (even worse) have submits pending to their devel projects.
Perhaps it's just the backports vs devel thing. Yesterday I updated libebml/libmatroska to the latest upstream release, but I have no plans to submit it to Factory. I know theoretically this could cause problems, but those packages are of the kind which are only touched when upstream releases a new version. I'm 99.99999999% sure the Factory version will not need any change in the time remaining until the release (and if needed I only need to revert the last commit). There are real problems (at least in 11.3 moonlight fails to even load in Firefox without the SRed patch), but perhaps the problem is not so big as it seems. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help@opensuse.org
participants (11)
-
Christian Boltz -
Cristian Morales Vega -
Dave Plater -
Juergen Weigert -
Karl Eichwalder -
Marcus Meissner -
Pavol Rusnak -
Ralf Lang -
Sascha Peilicke -
Stefan Seyfried -
Stephan Kulow