Per Øyvind Karlsen | 8 Nov 17:28 2013
Picon

Re: [OM Cooker] Rosa Software Center ?

2013/11/2 <davide.garatti <at> linux-corner.it>

Hi,

I do not understand why there should be "Rosa Software Center" in OpenMandriva Lx.

we already have a tool to install and remove software and  Rosa Software Center still does not work....

it would not be better remove it from the installation DVD

Personally I think tainting naming with any vendor name is a really lousy idea, and is personally rebranding it to DrakX Control Center in my branch...

--
Regards,
Per Øyvind
Per Øyvind Karlsen | 30 Aug 15:40 2013
Picon

ABF issues

I get 500 or 502 errors whenever trying to access stuff on ABF, what's up? :|

--
Regards,
Per Øyvind
Per Øyvind Karlsen | 26 Aug 19:17 2013
Picon

Strange buildconflicts

When touching db* packages, I notice this odd buildconflicts:
BuildConflicts: libreoffice-core

Tomasz, care to elaborate about the necessity of this?
(It would btw. be nice if people did better at not only documenting exactly what they've done in commit messages, but also it's rationale whenever it's not too obvious (either in commit message or as a comment in spec file:).

--
Regards,
Per Øyvind
Marja van Waes | 12 Aug 08:55 2013
Picon
Picon

updating moondrake beta

Hi all,

Some months ago I tried the moondrake beta and I liked it.

However, I didn't find out how to update it. What did I miss?

Kind regards,
Marja

Ben Bullard | 2 Aug 03:23 2013
Picon
Picon

Re: [OM Cooker] Separate qa mailing list, why?!?!

On 08/01/2013 07:29 PM, Per Øyvind Karlsen wrote:
2013/8/2 Ben Bullard <benbullard79 <at> cox.net>
On 08/01/2013 09:21 AM, Per Øyvind Karlsen wrote:
worsen communication
As compared to the high level of communication on this list? :-D
Touché. ;)

I was more thinking along the lines of being more difficult to follow discussions though. :)

--
Regards,
Per Øyvind
I am the person who asked for the list and I asked for it to be private for members of the QA team to discuss things amongst ourselves without outside noise. It is other people who decided it should be a public list. I still believe it should be private. OM-General and OM-Cooker are more that enough for public discussion. In fact other lists such as OM-council and OM-infra are private. As should, IMOH, be OM-QA.

Of note it is obvious to me that the QA-team is slowed by noise from outside those of us who are actually trying to accomplish work. And some of us are trying hard to spark a movement of this distro in a forward direction.

And before anyone squawks, don't start with me about being open/transparent. Do any of you believe that Fedora and OpenSuSE don't have such channels of communication? If you do then you are not well informed. These are the distros I looked at as we were forming the QA-Team.

Any QA teams work is ultimately public and should be as is ours. Yet all organizations at times see a need do do some things privately with a small work group. This is not new. It is not unusual. The 6/24 .iso is a prime example of something that most definitely should have been tested internally before public release. This type of testing can't be done while communicating on a list open to the public. Do any of you actually believe that Fedora or OpenSuSE release an Alpha .iso without internal QA? I know for a fact that they don't. Hence they both have private channels of communication for various work groups as do many opensource groups, non-profit, for profit business organizations. Again not only is this not unusual it is standard practice.

-- Thanks, Ben ------------------------------------------------------------------------- OM-QA mailing list OM-QA <at> ml.openmandriva.org http://ml.openmandriva.org/listinfo.cgi/om-qa-openmandriva.org
pcpa | 2 Aug 02:38 2013
Picon

Re: [OM Cooker] Please make "E: incoherent-version-in-name" 1 error only, not 50

Per Øyvind Karlsen escreveu:
> 2013/7/23 <pcpa <at> mandriva.com.br>
>
>>   I have added a rpmlintrc with these contents:
>>
>> addFilter("E: incoherent-version-in-name")
>
>
>> to 20 or more of my packages already.
>>
> It sounds quite strange that you need to add this if you're adhering to
> library packaging policies..

  I am breaking it for "my packages" only. You should be aware that abf
itself does not keep old libraries if one bumps the major and does not
rebuild the older one, either in same package or adding a compat library.

> The reason why I gave this a score of 50 is because people often end up not
> noticing when abi major changes, still packaging libraries of different abi
> in same package.

  If one does not test an update, some different way of breaking stuff
will be found after enough tries :-)

>>   On an urelated note, I approve of that a missing
>> group tag is only 1 rpmlint error. I am removing
>> the group tag of several of my packages also, so
>> that the same spec can be used in different distros.
>>
> Can't you just make the group tags conditional or something?
> %if %{_rpmversion} < 5.0.0...

  I prefer to cleanup the spec, not add more to it :-)

Paulo

Ben Bullard | 2 Aug 01:30 2013
Picon
Picon

Re: [OM Cooker] Separate qa mailing list, why?!?!

On 08/01/2013 09:21 AM, Per Øyvind Karlsen wrote:
worsen communication
As compared to the high level of communication on this list? :-D

-- Thanks, Ben ------------------------------------------------------------------------- OM-QA mailing list OM-QA <at> ml.openmandriva.org http://ml.openmandriva.org/listinfo.cgi/om-qa-openmandriva.org
Per Øyvind Karlsen | 2 Aug 00:33 2013
Picon

Re: Overeager cleaning of -devel provides

2013/8/1 Matthew Dawkins <mattydaw <at> gmail.com>

I understand Multiarch quite well.
You obviously don't as you don't understand why one would install both 32 & 64 bit builds of -devel packages simultanously..

What is apparent is that you don't understand the library packaging policy all to well. So, go ahead and have a read:
http://wiki.mandriva.com/en/Libraries_policy

There's two sections that pertain to your misconception of package names and provides that you particularly need to take note.

The actual naming however _IS_VERY_ important. It's why the library naming policy for Mandriva mimics that of Debian's.
We're talking about naming of provides, not naming of packages.
 
--
Regards,
Per Øyvind
Per Øyvind Karlsen | 1 Aug 04:07 2013
Picon

Separate qa mailing list, why?!?!

Can anyone provide a sane rationale for why we have a separate QA list?


It only causes unnecessary fragmentation and worsen communication.
And considering the really low amount of traffic on our mailing lists these days, it's a totally and completely overkill.

--
Regards,
Per Øyvind
Per Øyvind Karlsen | 1 Aug 04:04 2013
Picon

Re: [OM Cooker] Packaging.

2013/7/25 Ben Bullard <benbullard <at> cox.net>

I've added my name to 'Asking for being member' for Packaging team. In order to do this I'll need a mentor. That's a polite way of saying I don't know enough and will need to be taught/learn how to package for OpenMandriva.
I can take you on. :)

--
Regards,
Per Øyvind
Per Øyvind Karlsen | 1 Aug 04:03 2013
Picon

Re: [OM Cooker] Please make "E: incoherent-version-in-name" 1 error only, not 50

2013/7/23 <pcpa <at> mandriva.com.br>

  I have added a rpmlintrc with these contents:

addFilter("E: incoherent-version-in-name")

to 20 or more of my packages already.
It sounds quite strange that you need to add this if you're adhering to library packaging policies..

The reason why I gave this a score of 50 is because people often end up not noticing when abi major changes, still packaging libraries of different abi in same package. 


  On an urelated note, I approve of that a missing
group tag is only 1 rpmlint error. I am removing
the group tag of several of my packages also, so
that the same spec can be used in different distros.
Can't you just make the group tags conditional or something?
%if %{_rpmversion} < 5.0.0...

Gmane