On 11/26/2010 12:20 PM, Panu Matilainen wrote: > It's that time of year again, although there seems to be an off-by-one bug > in the calendar system causing some inconsistency in the timing wrt last > year :P > http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2009-November/042339.html > > Anyway, before going to beta and starting the inevitable Fedora Feature > process, we'd like some extra preliminary testing to catch out any major > issues early on. > > The alpha isn't supposed to eat your system alive or anything, but proceed > with appropriate cauting, backing up the rpmdb etc, as usual. > > The draft release notes are at http://rpm.org/wiki/Releases/4.9.0 > and Fedora compatible SRPM(s) can be found at > http://laiskiainen.org/rpm/srpms/ > > In particular, I'm interested in feedback on the new, pluggable and > enhanced dependency extration system. Documentation is scarce at the > moment but some background and examples can be found here: > http://laiskiainen.org/blog/?p=35 > > Note that the current SRPM is missing gstreamer plugin, cups driver > and automatic "devel-symlink" dependency generation, on purpose: the > highly application-domain specific gstreamer + cups bits can now be fully > moved out of rpm to gstreamer-devel etc, eliminating the need for > embedding python inside /bin/sh scripts and such to avoid extra > dependencies. The devel-symlink generation will stay in rpm but will > probably change somewhat, it can be handled in a more generic fashion now. > > Please report any oddities found, preferably to rpm.org Trac > at http://rpm.org/newticket or rpm-maint list (or here for fedora-specific > discussions/suggestions etc). > > P.S. Pjones, before you ask ;) The much wanted ordering-only feature is > not in the alpha, but is likely to make it into beta. The patch itself is > fairly trivial and non-intrusive, we're just trying to figure sane spec > syntax for it (discussion ongoing on rpm-maint) > > - Panu - > > > > Hello, I tried rebuild RPM on F-14. New RPM doesn't find all provides as it should. Example: RPM 4.9.alpha rpm -qp --provides perl-CGI-3.50-1.fc14.noarch.rpm perl-CGI = 3.50-1.fc14 RPM from koji: rpm -qp --provides perl-CGI-3.50-1.fc15.noarch.rpm perl(CGI) perl(CGI::Apache) = 1.01 perl(CGI::Carp) = 3.45 perl(CGI::Cookie) perl(CGI::Fast) perl(CGI::Pretty) = 3.46 perl(CGI::Push) perl(CGI::Switch) = 1.01 perl(CGITempFile) perl(CGI::Util) = 3.48 perl(Fh) perl(MultipartBuffer) perl(utf8) perl-CGI = 3.50-1.fc15 I suppose RPM was looking for all strings 'package' in source code. Could you look at it? As test SRPM you can use: http://mmaslano.fedorapeople.org/review/perl-CGI-3.50-1.fc14.src.rpm Thank you, Marcela -- Marcela MaÅlÃÅovà BaseOS team Brno -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
