8.0 packages to QA

[Pedro Canadilla]

Hi Jon,

I'm new to this issues about compiling. Where are the patch you use for
the rebuild? Is it necessary to edit the spec from the rpm file to
include the pacht? 
As I can see in the bugzilla errors getting the packages for QA, the
patch can be from the different sources: debian, redhat, etc. so I fear
myself thinking that you have to be a very good developer to do that
kind of things and I'm not a developer at all. I only know to rebuild a
package from sources. But I'm happy because there a lot of people who
share his effors to us. Thanks a lot for your help.

I'm testing in QA all the psyche packages that are released, and I have
a question... Where I can write that I'm testing that packages? For
example, xchat and OpenOffice from Marc, kernel 2.4.20-32-7, libxml2,
libxml2-python, lha, etc? 

Best Regards,
P.C.

El dom, 06-06-2004 a las 14:01, Jon Peatfield escribió:
> I did try to volunteer to build/test packages for RH8 last year but
> no-one replied to my request for further information on the procedures
> for arranging for packages to be uploaded/tested.
> 
> Occasionally since then I've looked at the fl download site and again
> seen the lack of packages (even for RH73 or 9 -- which I don't use so
> don't really care about).
> 
> I ended up building all the relevant ones myself (assuming that no-one
> else was interested).  Before the RH9 EOL most of those packages (or a
> simple rebuild from the SRPM) were enough, since then I've picked
> SRPMs from RHEL-AS3, fedora-core and occasionally just applied the
> relevant patch to the last RH8 SRPM.
> 
> Since I'm doing this just for the ~190 RH8 machines I look after I'm
> only building updates (mostly the security ones) for packages we
> actually install (so some are bound to be missing).
> 
> Since the RH8 EOL, I have used updates for the followng:
> 
> # From RH9 updates needing no rebuild
> tcpdump-3.7.2-7.9.1
> startup-notification-0.5-1
> gaim-0.75-0.9.0
> netpbm-9.24-10.90.1
> gdk-pixbuf-0.22.0-6.1.0
> sysstat-4.0.7-4.rhl9.1
> mozilla-1.4.2-0.9.0
> cvs-1.11.2-17
> lha-1.14i-9.1
> mc-4.6.0-14.9
> libpng-1.2.2-20
> libpng10-1.0.13-11
> 
> # from RH9 rebuild SRPM (with minor changes)
> mutt-1.4.1-3.3.D80
> XFree86-4.3.0-1.80.55.D
> fontconfig-2.1-9
> freetype-2.1.3-6
> ttmkfdir-3.0.9-1
> kernel-2.4.20-30.8.JSP
> libxml2-2.5.4-3.rh8
> kernel-2.4.20-31.8.JSP
> xchat-1.8.11-8
> utempter-0.5.5-2.RHL8.0.JSP
> 
> # from RHEL-AS3 SRPM
> cvs-1.11.2-22JSP
> rsync-2.5.7-4.80.JSP1
> 
> # Applied patch to last RH8 update
> kdelibs-3.0.5a-5.80.1JSP
> openssl-0.9.6b-36.8.JSP
> kdelibs-3.0.5a-6.80.1JSP
> 
> # rebuild from fedora-core version (none are security related)
> octave-2.1.57-1.JSP
> aspell-0.50.5-1.JSP
> gnome-spell-0.4.1-5.JSP
> 
> I didn't bother with openoffice, apache, ftpd, flim etc since we don't
> use the RH packages version (for complex reasons), so I just arranged
> to patch the copy we installed ourselves.
> 
> Next month we might actually have time to start thinking of what we
> should switch our desktop machines to next...
> 
>  -- Jon
> 
> 
> --
> fedora-legacy-list mailing list
> fedora-legacy-list at redhat.com
> http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list