FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Redhat > Fedora Development

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 11-25-2008, 11:44 AM
Paul
 
Default Heads up for mono-2.2

Hi,

I'm in the middle of rebuilding mono-2.2. As is usual with these things,
Mono 2.2 has a pile of fixes and new additions to packages.

Can packagers please be aware that monodoc is no longer going to be in
rawhide as it has been integrated now into mono itself. The new
subpackage is called mono-monodoc (and mono-monodoc-devel). All of the
monodoc files go exactly where they used to with the old monodoc
packages, but you will need to rebuild all packages which use monodoc to
point the BR to mono-monodoc-devel rather than just monodoc-devel.

TTFN

Paul
--
Sie können mich aufreizen und wirklich heiß machen!
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 11-25-2008, 11:57 AM
"Peter Robinson"
 
Default Heads up for mono-2.2

> I'm in the middle of rebuilding mono-2.2. As is usual with these things,
> Mono 2.2 has a pile of fixes and new additions to packages.
>
> Can packagers please be aware that monodoc is no longer going to be in
> rawhide as it has been integrated now into mono itself. The new
> subpackage is called mono-monodoc (and mono-monodoc-devel). All of the
> monodoc files go exactly where they used to with the old monodoc
> packages, but you will need to rebuild all packages which use monodoc to
> point the BR to mono-monodoc-devel rather than just monodoc-devel.

Can the new mono-monodoc provide the old package names to make
transition easier?

Peter

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 11-25-2008, 12:06 PM
Bill Crawford
 
Default Heads up for mono-2.2

On Tuesday 25 November 2008 12:44:26 Paul wrote:

> Can packagers please be aware that monodoc is no longer going to be in
> rawhide as it has been integrated now into mono itself. The new
> subpackage is called mono-monodoc (and mono-monodoc-devel). All of the
> monodoc files go exactly where they used to with the old monodoc
> packages, but you will need to rebuild all packages which use monodoc to
> point the BR to mono-monodoc-devel rather than just monodoc-devel.

Couldn't the monodoc subpackage be specified as %package -n monodoc ?

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 11-25-2008, 12:08 PM
Dan Horák
 
Default Heads up for mono-2.2

Peter Robinson p*še v Út 25. 11. 2008 v 12:57 +0000:
> > I'm in the middle of rebuilding mono-2.2. As is usual with these things,
> > Mono 2.2 has a pile of fixes and new additions to packages.
> >
> > Can packagers please be aware that monodoc is no longer going to be in
> > rawhide as it has been integrated now into mono itself. The new
> > subpackage is called mono-monodoc (and mono-monodoc-devel). All of the
> > monodoc files go exactly where they used to with the old monodoc
> > packages, but you will need to rebuild all packages which use monodoc to
> > point the BR to mono-monodoc-devel rather than just monodoc-devel.
>
> Can the new mono-monodoc provide the old package names to make
> transition easier?

I expect that old monodoc will be obsoleted, so there must exist an
upgrade path to be compliant with the guidelines.


Dan


--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 11-25-2008, 12:11 PM
Paul
 
Default Heads up for mono-2.2

Hi,

> Can packagers please be aware that monodoc is no longer going to be in
> rawhide as it has been integrated now into mono itself. The new
> subpackage is called mono-monodoc (and mono-monodoc-devel). All of the
> monodoc files go exactly where they used to with the old monodoc
> packages, but you will need to rebuild all packages which use monodoc to
> point the BR to mono-monodoc-devel rather than just monodoc-devel.

Sorry - brain fart there... Ignore the above - monodoc is part of the
mono core distribution, but all I need is the magic of -n to call it
monodoc again!

Silly me...

TTFN

Paul

--
Sie können mich aufreizen und wirklich heiß machen!
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 11-25-2008, 12:24 PM
"Nicolas Mailhot"
 
Default Heads up for mono-2.2

Le Mar 25 novembre 2008 14:11, Paul a crit :

> Sorry - brain fart there... Ignore the above - monodoc is part of the
> mono core distribution, but all I need is the magic of -n to call it
> monodoc again!

The magic of -n will mean confused bug reporters that waste time
searching for an srpm that does not exist anymore

--
Nicolas Mailhot

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 11-25-2008, 01:15 PM
Paul
 
Default Heads up for mono-2.2

Hi,

> > Sorry - brain fart there... Ignore the above - monodoc is part of the
> > mono core distribution, but all I need is the magic of -n to call it
> > monodoc again!
>
> The magic of -n will mean confused bug reporters that waste time
> searching for an srpm that does not exist anymore

True, but it's really six of one, half a dozen of the other. I've
packaged it as monodoc and monodoc-devel as it'll probably cause fewer
problems than it will solve to have folks looking for monodoc.

TTFN

Paul
--
Sie können mich aufreizen und wirklich heiß machen!
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 11-25-2008, 01:27 PM
Till Maas
 
Default Heads up for mono-2.2

On Tue November 25 2008, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> Le Mar 25 novembre 2008 14:11, Paul a crit :
> > Sorry - brain fart there... Ignore the above - monodoc is part of the
> > mono core distribution, but all I need is the magic of -n to call it
> > monodoc again!
>
> The magic of -n will mean confused bug reporters that waste time
> searching for an srpm that does not exist anymore

Why should people search for this srpm? If they do, why should they not use
use "yumdownloader --source monodoc" or to use "rpm -qi monodoc" to determine
the name of the srpm. I belive that if people need the srpm, they should be
skilled enough to use the right tools to get a srpm. And if there are not,
then they will at least learn how to search for an srpm the right way, after
they reported a bug.

Regards,
Till
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 11-25-2008, 04:28 PM
"James Hubbard"
 
Default Heads up for mono-2.2

2008/11/25 Till Maas <opensource@till.name>:
> On Tue November 25 2008, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
>> The magic of -n will mean confused bug reporters that waste time
>> searching for an srpm that does not exist anymore
>
> Why should people search for this srpm? If they do, why should they not use
> use "yumdownloader --source monodoc" or to use "rpm -qi monodoc" to determine
> the name of the srpm. I belive that if people need the srpm, they should be
> skilled enough to use the right tools to get a srpm. And if there are not,
> then they will at least learn how to search for an srpm the right way, after
> they reported a bug.

Why does anyone go searching for a srpm? Everyone has their reasons.
You are assuming that the user has those tools. What if the user is
on another system or does not have net connectivity? I will go back
to older versions of fedora to download srpms. However, I usually
know the package name.

I do not believe that not having a separate srpm for this will be a
problem. Anyone that needs it will probably figure it out. I think
that having packages where there are multiple applications in one rpm
is more of a problem from the end user stand point. The example that
sticks out my head is the kdeskd rpm. I think that topic has already
been discussed so there is no need to go over it again.

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 11-26-2008, 09:54 AM
"Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski"
 
Default Heads up for mono-2.2

On Tuesday, 25 November 2008 at 18:28, James Hubbard wrote:
> 2008/11/25 Till Maas <opensource@till.name>:
> > On Tue November 25 2008, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> >> The magic of -n will mean confused bug reporters that waste time
> >> searching for an srpm that does not exist anymore
> >
> > Why should people search for this srpm? If they do, why should they not use
> > use "yumdownloader --source monodoc" or to use "rpm -qi monodoc" to determine
> > the name of the srpm. I belive that if people need the srpm, they should be
> > skilled enough to use the right tools to get a srpm. And if there are not,
> > then they will at least learn how to search for an srpm the right way, after
> > they reported a bug.
>
> Why does anyone go searching for a srpm? Everyone has their reasons.
> You are assuming that the user has those tools. What if the user is
> on another system or does not have net connectivity? I will go back
> to older versions of fedora to download srpms. However, I usually
> know the package name.
>
> I do not believe that not having a separate srpm for this will be a
> problem. Anyone that needs it will probably figure it out. I think
> that having packages where there are multiple applications in one rpm
> is more of a problem from the end user stand point.

You can always check which src.rpm a package was built from with rpm -qi.

> The example that
> sticks out my head is the kdeskd rpm.

yum search kdeskd returns no results.

Regards,
R.

--
Fedora http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Rathann
RPMFusion http://rpmfusion.org | MPlayer http://mplayerhq.hu
"Faith manages."
-- Delenn to Lennier in Babylon 5:"Confessions and Lamentations"

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 11:02 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org