From tcallawa at redhat.com Thu Aug 2 17:56:46 2007 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2007 13:56:46 -0400 Subject: Licensing guidelines changes Message-ID: <1186077406.9748.166.camel@localhost.localdomain> Today, FESCo ratified a new policy for handling the License tag inside of package spec files. You can read the new Licensing Guidelines here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines What does this mean for Fedora package maintainers? It means that you're going to need to do a little bit of work. We want F8 packages to have the correct license tag before we release F8. Some questions (with answers): Q. Where is the list of approved licenses? A. It can be found here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing Q. One of my packages uses a license which is not listed, what should I do? A. Email the details, along with a copy of the license, to tcallawa at redhat.com Q. One of my packages uses a license which is listed as "bad", what should I do? A. Either remove the bits which are under the "bad" license, or remove the package from Fedora. If you're not sure what to do, you can email tcallawa at redhat.com, and I'll help. Q. My package is under the GPL/LGPL, do I really need to change it to note the version? A. Yes. This is very important, and will greatly assist us in tracking GPL license interoperability and interlinking conflicts. Q. How should I know if my package is using an "or later version" license clause? A. Some licenses (GPL, LGPL especially) can include an "or any later version" clause. This clause isn't invoked in the license text (at least, not for the GPL/LGPL), but rather, in the source code or corresponding documentation. Look in the source code and see if there is any reference to "any later version". The GPL sample text looks like this: This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. The GPL/LGPL "or any later version" clause is _only_ activated when upstream puts it in the source code or attached documentation, so if you can't find it outside of COPYING, it doesn't apply. If you do find it, you make sure the License identifier ends with a +. Q. Why can't I use "Distributable"/"BSD-ish"? A. Its far too vague. We need the specific information to help us perform faster license audits and legal compatibility checks. Q. Do I need to rebuild the package when I make the license tag change? A. In the development branch, yes, please. We're not requiring that you rebuild older branches, but please at least commit the fixed license tag to CVS for all branches, so that it gets picked up on the next update. Q. I want to help you handle Fedora Licensing, spot! A. Are you sure? Its a rather thankless job, you have to tell people that things can't go in Fedora. But if you're interested in helping out, drop me an email. Q. I have a question that you've not covered here, what should I do? A. Ask it. I'll try to answer it. :) ~spot From dcantrell at redhat.com Thu Aug 2 19:37:54 2007 From: dcantrell at redhat.com (David Cantrell) Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2007 15:37:54 -0400 Subject: dhcpv6 license correction Message-ID: <20070802153754.f9e7394a.dcantrell@redhat.com> The dhcpv6 package has incorrectly identified its license for quite some time. The spec file noted the license was GPL. The license is actually BSD, so the spec file has been updated and the package in devel has been rebuilt. The BSD license covers the following packages related to dhcpv6: dhcpv6 dhcpv6-client libdhcp6client libdhcp6client-devel libdhcp6client-static -- David Cantrell Red Hat / Westford, MA -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From tcallawa at redhat.com Thu Aug 2 20:57:04 2007 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2007 16:57:04 -0400 Subject: check 0.9.5 in rawhide Message-ID: <1186088224.9748.211.camel@localhost.localdomain> I've revived check to push it to 0.9.5 in rawhide. If you are building against old check, please note that check now generates both static and shared libs. The check-static subpackage may be what you need to BuildRequires, along with check-devel. If this is too painful, I can go back to 0.9.3, just let me know. ~spot From jkeating at redhat.com Fri Aug 3 13:21:59 2007 From: jkeating at redhat.com (Jesse Keating) Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2007 09:21:59 -0400 Subject: Rawhide unfrozen Message-ID: <20070803092159.5e1f04bc@ender> Given that we have a good tree set for F8 Test1 I have unfrozen rawhide. The results of which can be seen in the rawhide-report that just landed. Since F8 Test1 is not released yet (got to give mirrors time to get it) anybody who tracks rawhide will have moved on from what is in Test1, therefor "upgrades" to test1 are not possible. Thank you for your patience while we worked on Test1. -- Jesse Keating Fedora -- All my bits are free, are yours? -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From debarshi.ray at gmail.com Sat Aug 4 15:57:02 2007 From: debarshi.ray at gmail.com (Debarshi 'Rishi' Ray) Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2007 21:27:02 +0530 Subject: [LICENSE CHANGE] GNU Gengetopt Message-ID: <3170f42f0708040857k11225767sda80213996647968@mail.gmail.com> >From version 2.21 GNU Gengetopt (http://www.gnu.org/software/gengetopt/) has changed its license to "GPL version 3 or later". However this does not affect the code generated by Gengetopt and the info manual says: "The code that Gengetopt generates is also free software; however it is licensed with a simple all-permissive license instead of the GPL or LGPL. You are free to do anything you like with the generated code, including incorporating it into or linking it with proprietary software." If this is not a problem then I shall update the Fedora package to version 2.21 Happy hacking, Debarshi -- GPG key ID: 63D4A5A7 Key server: pgp.mit.edu From jkeating at redhat.com Tue Aug 7 14:14:20 2007 From: jkeating at redhat.com (Jesse Keating) Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2007 10:14:20 -0400 Subject: Announcing Fedora 8 Test 1 (7.90) Message-ID: <20070807101420.618b5725@localhost.localdomain> We interrupt your rawhide for a moment to make a small announcement. Fedora 8 Test one has been loosed upon the world today. Included in this release is a "Fedora" installable 'choose your own adventure' style set of isos and trees for i386, x86_64, and ppc(64). Also included are Live images of both the Fedora Desktop and the Fedora KDE desktop. These are available for both i686 and x86_64 (x86_64 is DVD size only). Remember these can be used on USB media via the livecd-iso-to-disk utility available in the livecd-tools package. Test 1 is for "alpha" users. This is the time when we would like to have full community participation. Without this participation both hardware and software functionality suffers. We need your help. Join us! Road Map And Release Schedule ============================= This is the first test release of the Fedora 8 release, which is scheduled for November 8, 2007. For further information see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/8/ How to get it: ============= DVD and network installation are available. We also offer two different varieties of installable Live media. http://fedoraproject.org/get-fedora.html For those of you already running rawhide, all you need to do is yum update. You may already have packages newer than Test 1 installed. Bug reporting and tracking: ========================== The Release Engineering and QA teams keep track of bugs that are considered release blockers. You can see that list here: http://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/showdependencytree.cgi?id=F8Blocker In addition, a list of non-blocker bugs that should be fixed for Fedora 8 if possible can be found here: http://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/showdependencytree.cgi?id=F8Target Please check these lists before reporting new bugs! Bugs for this release should be reported against the Fedora product, version 'f8test1'. You can use this convenient link to report bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/enter_bug.cgi?product=Fedora&version=f8test1 About Fedora ============ Fedora is a set of projects sponsored by Red Hat and guided by the contributors. These projects are developed by a large community of people who strive to provide and maintain the very best in free, open source software and standards. The central Fedora project is an operating system and platform based on Linux that is always free for anyone to use, modify, and distribute, now and forever. You can help the Fedora Project community continue to improve Fedora if you file bug reports and enhancement requests. Refer to http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugsAndFeatureRequests for more information. Thank you for your participation! To find out more general information about Fedora, refer to the following Web page: http://fedoraproject.org -- Jesse Keating Fedora -- All my bits are free, are yours? -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From a.badger at gmail.com Wed Aug 8 17:31:15 2007 From: a.badger at gmail.com (Toshio Kuratomi) Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2007 10:31:15 -0700 Subject: Changes to cvsadmin requests and acls Message-ID: <1186594278.31100.33.camel@localhost.localdomain> Hello Packagers, Over the next several weeks we're going to be transitioning away from the owner.list and pkg.acl files to the long awaited Package Database. As a transitional step we're going to continue to have our cvsadmins handling the changes to owners.list but the changes will go to the Database instead of to the owners.list file. There are two changes to your immediate workflow that you should be aware of: 1) pkg.acl files no longer serve acls. Instead, this information is contained in the packageDB. If you would like to have an acl changed, please use a cvsadmin request or see my note at the bottom of this message[1]_. 2) To make processing requests easier for the cvsadmins it would be greatly appreciated if you can use your Fedora username instead of email address in your cvsadmin requests. The Package Database keys off of the Fedora Account so doing this will let the admins handle the requests without having to lookup the username in the account system. The updated instructions for cvsadmin requests are here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/CVSAdminProcedure [1]_: After testing this for a few weeks we'll be announcing the general availability of many of these functions without having to go through a cvsadmin. If you would like to test the functionality knowing that there is no documentation and that you may run into glaring bugs, please send me email or get in touch with me on irc.freenode.net in #fedora-devel or #fedora-admin -- abadger1999 Thanks, Toshio Kuratomi -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From roland at redhat.com Thu Aug 9 01:32:16 2007 From: roland at redhat.com (Roland McGrath) Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2007 18:32:16 -0700 (PDT) Subject: F8 packagers note: new find-debuginfo.sh script Message-ID: <20070809013216.1EB524D04C4@magilla.localdomain> Coming soon to a dist-f8 near you will be an rpm-build package that includes a revamped find-debuginfo.sh script. This will be a new rpm-build > 4.4.2.1-3. You can find an unofficial build with the new script right now in http://koji.fedoraproject.org/scratch/roland/task_94236/ Most maintainers should not need to worry about the new script. It should silently do the right thing without any attention from you. If you see any new problems, please harrass me immediately. For any packages doing special non-default debuginfo packaging, please talk to me directly. I've taken care of kernel and glibc, which are the only special cases I know of. The only problem I know to expect is improperly built DSOs, where broken package makefiles run ld -shared directly instead of via gcc. I just posted about the details of this: https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-maintainers/2007-August/msg00135.html If this hits you, it was already a bug in your package, and now the tools are telling you about it early. If you see any messages like: *** ERROR: No build ID note found in ... then look into how the named binaries are linked. If it's not a simple case of changing ld -shared to $(CC) -shared, you can always contact me for help figuring it out. If anything else about the find-debuginfo.sh part of your build.log, or the -debuginfo rpm that results, looks suspect to you, don't hesitate to contact me. The intended changes are the build-id magic, smart handling of hard links and symlinks, and generating all the correct %dir lines. Thanks, Roland From ville.skytta at iki.fi Mon Aug 13 14:06:41 2007 From: ville.skytta at iki.fi (Ville =?iso-8859-1?q?Skytt=E4?=) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 17:06:41 +0300 Subject: New packaging guideline: users and groups Message-ID: <200708131706.41840.ville.skytta@iki.fi> A new guideline for handling user and group accounts in packages has been added to the packaging guidelines. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#UsersAndGroups http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/UsersAndGroups From wtogami at redhat.com Mon Aug 13 17:45:02 2007 From: wtogami at redhat.com (Warren Togami) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 13:45:02 -0400 Subject: Notice: Fedora 8 Feature Freeze - 2 WEEKS LEFT Message-ID: <46C0989E.2080609@redhat.com> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/8/Schedule Feature Freeze for Fedora 8 is coming soon on August 28th. The goal of the feature freeze is to be sure that the components are in a known and tested state before the release of Fedora 8. Notes ===== 1) Top Priority for the freeze are components within the default installations. 2) Secondary in freeze importance are packages within the entire Fedora Collection. Major changes after the Feature Freeze date are highly discouraged. 3) New packages may continue to be added to the devel branch during this period, as long as they do not require major changes of existing packages. 4) Contact FESCo if you need clarification or permission for an exception to the Feature Freeze. 5) If your feature misses the deadline, don't feel too disheartened. The F9 feature freeze is coming ~6 months later. 6) At some (yet to be determined) point we have to stop additions of new packages to F8 when we reach the DEEP FREEZE. This is when we stop the churn of new and updated packages in order to check consistency of the repository prior to the final release. By the calendar, F8 Final devel freeze is currently scheduled for October 23rd. If you have any questions about the Feature Freeze, please ask on fedora-devel-list. Thanks, Warren Togami wtogami at redhat.com From dimitris at glezos.com Mon Aug 20 21:27:52 2007 From: dimitris at glezos.com (Dimitris Glezos) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 22:27:52 +0100 Subject: String Freeze Policy effective from today Message-ID: <46CA0758.7060406@glezos.com> Hey all. A quick announcement that from today we have a String Freeze Policy active: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/ReleaseEngineering/StringFreezePolicy Maintainers of packages that get translated by the Localization Project would want to take a look at the policy, as it describes what to do if you really need to break the freeze date. Reminding that the string freeze for Fedora 8 is the 28th of August, as noted on the Release Schedule. For more information on String Freezes, jump to: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/L10N/Freezes#string On this page there is also a section for Translation Freezes (#translation), which basically is a date where we guarantee translators that all contributions done up to that point will be included in the final Release. -d -- Dimitris Glezos Jabber ID: glezos at jabber.org, GPG: 0xA5A04C3B http://dimitris.glezos.com/ "He who gives up functionality for ease of use loses both and deserves neither." (Anonymous) -- From jkeating at redhat.com Tue Aug 21 18:20:31 2007 From: jkeating at redhat.com (Jesse Keating) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 14:20:31 -0400 Subject: Perl hiccup in rawhide buildroots Message-ID: <20070821142031.60696916@mentok.boston.redhat.com> A malfunctioning build of perl landed in the rawhide buildroots a few minutes ago. This caused almost every build that started afterward to fail with a mock error 100 (unable to init the build root). I've untagged the bad build of perl and a newRepo task has started that has a better build of perl on it. Once this task (http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=113051 ) is done, you'll need to resubmit your builds for rawhide. Very sorry for the interruption in service. -- Jesse Keating Fedora -- All my bits are free, are yours? -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jkeating at redhat.com Tue Aug 21 18:35:10 2007 From: jkeating at redhat.com (Jesse Keating) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 14:35:10 -0400 Subject: Perl hiccup in rawhide buildroots In-Reply-To: <20070821142031.60696916@mentok.boston.redhat.com> References: <20070821142031.60696916@mentok.boston.redhat.com> Message-ID: <20070821143510.2ea8c352@mentok.boston.redhat.com> On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 14:20:31 -0400 Jesse Keating wrote: > A malfunctioning build of perl landed in the rawhide buildroots a few > minutes ago. This caused almost every build that started afterward to > fail with a mock error 100 (unable to init the build root). I've > untagged the bad build of perl and a newRepo task has started that has > a better build of perl on it. Once this task > (http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=113051 ) is done, > you'll need to resubmit your builds for rawhide. > > Very sorry for the interruption in service. As of Tue, 21 Aug 2007 11:20:48 MST (koji time), a new repo was in place for rawhide builds to use. Builds should be able to init the buildroot now. -- Jesse Keating Fedora -- All my bits are free, are yours? -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From dkl at redhat.com Wed Aug 22 21:39:01 2007 From: dkl at redhat.com (Dave Lawrence) Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 17:39:01 -0400 Subject: Bugzilla Server Outage Announcement Message-ID: <46CCACF5.8040300@redhat.com> S E R V E R O U T A G E A N N O U N C E M E N T ================================================= Scheduled Date: 8/24/2007 Scheduled Time: 19:00 EDT (-0400) Estimated Time Required: 8-10 Hours Performed By: Red Hat Engineering Operations People/Groups Impacted: Bugzilla/Hardware Catalog Users Site/Services Affected: Bugzilla.redhat.com, Hardware.redhat.com Impact: Bugzilla/Hardware db and web will be completely unavailable until migration is complete. Description: We will be doing the final migration to a new external co-located Bugzilla environment. Changes - Now using native MySQL replication. Master w/ Slave hot backup - Now utilizing two fail over web servers - Login names lowercased: no longer permit mixed case. All duplicates have been removed. - Cookies: authentication has been modified since it is no longer possible to authenticate based on ip address. Everyone will need to re-login. Contact Please email us at bugzilla-owner at redhat.com if you have any concerns. From jkeating at redhat.com Tue Aug 28 16:44:20 2007 From: jkeating at redhat.com (Jesse Keating) Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2007 12:44:20 -0400 Subject: Scripted rebuilds coming up for ppc32 selinux fix. Message-ID: <20070828124420.6aad6f0a@mentok.boston.redhat.com> There are still a number (237 as of this morning) of packages that need to be rebuilt so that their ppc32 binaries will not cause selinux denials. This is very important to having a successful Fedora 8 Test 2 release for ppc. As such, Fedora Release Engineering will be doing a scripted rebuild of the remaining packages left to rebuild. We will not be fixing any open bugs, doing any license audit, or any other manual type work, it will merely be a scripted bump of the spec file and a build (failures will be investigated). We are not scripting the rebuilds of anything else at this time, just those packages marked as needing rebuild for ppc32 at http://jkeating.fedorapeople.org/really-need-to-rebuild These builds will begin shortly, after the next update to the really-need-to-build list. We apologize for any inconvenience these automated builds may cause you, especially given such short notice, however it is necessary that we complete these builds in time for Test2. -- Jesse Keating Fedora -- All my bits are free, are yours? -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jkeating at redhat.com Wed Aug 29 20:28:28 2007 From: jkeating at redhat.com (Jesse Keating) Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 16:28:28 -0400 Subject: Heads up, slight tree path change Message-ID: <20070829162828.2a4d5038@mentok.boston.redhat.com> As part of a continuing effort to make derivative distributions of Fedora easier, we're making the path names within the tree a bit more generic. Instead of os/Fedora/ the path will now be os/Packages/. This may cause you some shuffle or churn when syncing, and I apologize for the late notice. We've been having a heck of a time getting a rawhide to compose and I hadn't taken the time to send a mail about this. -- Jesse Keating Fedora -- All my bits are free, are yours? -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jkeating at redhat.com Wed Aug 29 21:31:46 2007 From: jkeating at redhat.com (Jesse Keating) Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 17:31:46 -0400 Subject: Frozen for Test2 Message-ID: <20070829173146.7b033f84@mentok.boston.redhat.com> We froze for test2 last night. This also marks the Feature freeze and the String freeze for the remainder of the Fedora 8 development cycle. Builds from rawhide will continue to get the 'dist-f8' tag, and will be available in the buildroots to build against. However rawhide will compose from the 'dist-rawhide' tag, which inherits from 'f8-test2'. If you need to get a build into Fedora 8 Test2, please follow http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/ReleaseEngineering/TestFreezePolicy For schedule information, see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/8/Schedule To see if your build made the freeze cut off, see http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/builds?tagID=25 or simply call 'koji latest-pkg f8-test2 ' -- Jesse Keating Fedora -- All my bits are free, are yours? -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jkeating at redhat.com Fri Aug 31 00:28:13 2007 From: jkeating at redhat.com (Jesse Keating) Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 20:28:13 -0400 Subject: Fedora developers running Rawhide and having source upload issues... Message-ID: <20070830202813.357d3ed0@ender> Curl was recently modified to link against nss instead of openssl for it's ssl capabilities. For some reason, this does not work with our source look aside cache. If you are having issues uploading new sources in your packages and you're using rawhide, make sure that you're using a curl no newer than 7.16.4-2. If you have a newer version, downgrade using the packages found at http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=13319 We'll work with the curl developers to resolve this issue as soon as possible. -- Jesse Keating Fedora -- All my bits are free, are yours? -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: