CentOS developers,
I now have updates to nx/freenx that address the following bug reports:
http://bugs.centos.org/view.php?id=4428 http://bugs.centos.org/view.php?id=4422 http://bugs.centos.org/view.php?id=4409 http://bugs.centos.org/view.php?id=4408 http://bugs.centos.org/view.php?id=4398
Could you please publish them in the extras repo as before? You can find the srpms here:
http://centos.toracat.org/misc/nx/5/SRPMS/nx-3.4.0-5.el5.ay.src.rpm
and
http://centos.toracat.org/misc/nx/5/SRPMS/freenx-0.7.3-5.el5.ay.src.rpm
I thanks people who reported bugs, offered fix/enhancements and performed testing.
Akemi
On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 7:33 AM, Akemi Yagi amyagi@gmail.com wrote:
CentOS developers,
I now have updates to nx/freenx that address the following bug reports:
http://bugs.centos.org/view.php?id=4428 http://bugs.centos.org/view.php?id=4422 http://bugs.centos.org/view.php?id=4409 http://bugs.centos.org/view.php?id=4408 http://bugs.centos.org/view.php?id=4398
Could you please publish them in the extras repo as before? You can find the srpms here:
http://centos.toracat.org/misc/nx/5/SRPMS/nx-3.4.0-5.el5.ay.src.rpm
and
http://centos.toracat.org/misc/nx/5/SRPMS/freenx-0.7.3-5.el5.ay.src.rpm
I thanks people who reported bugs, offered fix/enhancements and performed testing.
I am aware that Tru has been busy; otherwise I would have asked him like I did the last time. Who else can sign and push these packages? While there may not be urgency with these packages, all the hard work has been done by users/helpers, leaving only the last step to be done by CentOS devs. But that step is actually becoming the "hardest" part. :(
Akemi
On 08/11/2010 05:36 PM, Akemi Yagi wrote:
http://centos.toracat.org/misc/nx/5/SRPMS/nx-3.4.0-5.el5.ay.src.rpm http://centos.toracat.org/misc/nx/5/SRPMS/freenx-0.7.3-5.el5.ay.src.rpm
I am aware that Tru has been busy; otherwise I would have asked him like I did the last time. Who else can sign and push these packages?
I'll take care of these tonight.
- KB
On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 9:39 AM, Karanbir Singh mail-lists@karan.org wrote:
I am aware that Tru has been busy; otherwise I would have asked him like I did the last time. Who else can sign and push these packages?
I'll take care of these tonight.
Thanks for building the packages. I have tested them (i386 and x86_64) and found no issue. Could you go ahead and publish them, please?
Akemi
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 7:49 AM, Akemi Yagi amyagi@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 9:39 AM, Karanbir Singh mail-lists@karan.org wrote:
I am aware that Tru has been busy; otherwise I would have asked him like I did the last time. Who else can sign and push these packages?
I'll take care of these tonight.
Thanks for building the packages. I have tested them (i386 and x86_64) and found no issue. Could you go ahead and publish them, please?
Perhaps, I should try asking again.
Karanbir, will you please push the packages to the extras repo? And let's close those bug reports, too.
Akemi
On 8/18/2010 12:44 PM, Akemi Yagi wrote:
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 7:49 AM, Akemi Yagiamyagi@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 9:39 AM, Karanbir Singhmail-lists@karan.org wrote:
I am aware that Tru has been busy; otherwise I would have asked him like I did the last time. Who else can sign and push these packages?
I'll take care of these tonight.
Thanks for building the packages. I have tested them (i386 and x86_64) and found no issue. Could you go ahead and publish them, please?
Perhaps, I should try asking again.
Karanbir, will you please push the packages to the extras repo? And let's close those bug reports, too.
Is that going to affect people who currently have the epel package installed and also have extras enabled? I haven't had much trouble with the overlap yet but it makes me nervous when packages flip back and forth in updates.
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 10:58 AM, Les Mikesell lesmikesell@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/18/2010 12:44 PM, Akemi Yagi wrote:
Karanbir, will you please push the packages to the extras repo? And let's close those bug reports, too.
Is that going to affect people who currently have the epel package installed and also have extras enabled? I haven't had much trouble with the overlap yet but it makes me nervous when packages flip back and forth in updates.
As far as I can see, EPEL does not have NX. The only 3rd party repo that carries freenx/nx is ATRpms. But their nx is still in the "bleeding" category and is not maintained.
But I could be wrong. If you find new info, please share it here.
Akemi
On 08/18/2010 06:58 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
Is that going to affect people who currently have the epel package installed and also have extras enabled? I haven't had much trouble with the overlap yet but it makes me nervous when packages flip back and forth in updates.
Do these packages overlap ? Is there any possibility of talking to the maintainer in epel and see if we can sync releases ?
- KB
On 08/18/2010 09:05 PM, Karanbir Singh wrote:
On 08/18/2010 06:58 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
Is that going to affect people who currently have the epel package installed and also have extras enabled? I haven't had much trouble with the overlap yet but it makes me nervous when packages flip back and forth in updates.
Do these packages overlap ? Is there any possibility of talking to the maintainer in epel and see if we can sync releases ?
There is no freenx either in fedora ( since F9) or in EPEL. Hence nothing to overlap with.
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 11:19 AM, Manuel Wolfshant wolfy@nobugconsulting.ro wrote:
On 08/18/2010 09:05 PM, Karanbir Singh wrote:
Do these packages overlap ? Is there any possibility of talking to the maintainer in epel and see if we can sync releases ?
There is no freenx either in fedora ( since F9) or in EPEL. Hence nothing to overlap with.
Oh, but ... on my Fedora 13 box, I have:
rpm -qa | grep nx nxclient-3.4.0-7.x86_64 freenx-client-0.9-10.fc11.x86_64 freenx-server-0.7.3-18.fc13.x86_64 nxcl-0.9-10.fc11.x86_64 nx-3.3.0-38.fc12.x86_64 qtnx-0.9-10.fc11.x86_64
Akemi
On 08/18/2010 09:23 PM, Akemi Yagi wrote:
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 11:19 AM, Manuel Wolfshant wolfy@nobugconsulting.ro wrote:
On 08/18/2010 09:05 PM, Karanbir Singh wrote:
Do these packages overlap ? Is there any possibility of talking to the maintainer in epel and see if we can sync releases ?
There is no freenx either in fedora ( since F9) or in EPEL. Hence nothing to overlap with.
Oh, but ... on my Fedora 13 box, I have:
rpm -qa | grep nx nxclient-3.4.0-7.x86_64 freenx-client-0.9-10.fc11.x86_64 freenx-server-0.7.3-18.fc13.x86_64 nxcl-0.9-10.fc11.x86_64 nx-3.3.0-38.fc12.x86_64 qtnx-0.9-10.fc11.x86_64
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/acls/name/freenx?_csrf_token=85b06456f... + Fedora's policy regarding orphans says those packages should not exist :)
On 08/18/2010 09:30 PM, Manuel Wolfshant wrote:
On 08/18/2010 09:23 PM, Akemi Yagi wrote:
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 11:19 AM, Manuel Wolfshant wolfy@nobugconsulting.ro wrote:
On 08/18/2010 09:05 PM, Karanbir Singh wrote:
Do these packages overlap ? Is there any possibility of talking to the maintainer in epel and see if we can sync releases ?
There is no freenx either in fedora ( since F9) or in EPEL. Hence nothing to overlap with.
Oh, but ... on my Fedora 13 box, I have:
rpm -qa | grep nx nxclient-3.4.0-7.x86_64 freenx-client-0.9-10.fc11.x86_64 freenx-server-0.7.3-18.fc13.x86_64 nxcl-0.9-10.fc11.x86_64 nx-3.3.0-38.fc12.x86_64 qtnx-0.9-10.fc11.x86_64
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/acls/name/freenx?_csrf_token=85b06456f...
- Fedora's policy regarding orphans says those packages should not exist :)
My apologies, I did not notice that there exists a co-maintainer. Please disregard my previous mails.
On 08/18/2010 09:23 PM, Akemi Yagi wrote:
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 11:19 AM, Manuel Wolfshant wolfy@nobugconsulting.ro wrote:
On 08/18/2010 09:05 PM, Karanbir Singh wrote:
Do these packages overlap ? Is there any possibility of talking to the maintainer in epel and see if we can sync releases ?
There is no freenx either in fedora ( since F9) or in EPEL. Hence nothing to overlap with.
Oh, but ... on my Fedora 13 box, I have:
rpm -qa | grep nx nxclient-3.4.0-7.x86_64 freenx-client-0.9-10.fc11.x86_64 freenx-server-0.7.3-18.fc13.x86_64 nxcl-0.9-10.fc11.x86_64 nx-3.3.0-38.fc12.x86_64 qtnx-0.9-10.fc11.x86_64
But yet, despite my previous errior, the packages are not branched for EPEL, so my previous evaluation ( no conflicts ) still stands.
Manuel "I'll be more attentive after I grab some sleep. I promise"
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 11:34 AM, Manuel Wolfshant wolfy@nobugconsulting.ro wrote:
On 08/18/2010 09:23 PM, Akemi Yagi wrote:
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 11:19 AM, Manuel Wolfshant wolfy@nobugconsulting.ro wrote:
Oh, but ... on my Fedora 13 box, I have:
rpm -qa | grep nx nxclient-3.4.0-7.x86_64 freenx-client-0.9-10.fc11.x86_64 freenx-server-0.7.3-18.fc13.x86_64 nxcl-0.9-10.fc11.x86_64 nx-3.3.0-38.fc12.x86_64 qtnx-0.9-10.fc11.x86_64
But yet, despite my previous errior, the packages are not branched for EPEL, so my previous evaluation ( no conflicts ) still stands.
Yes, that agrees with my previous post regarding "no NX in EPEL".
Actually the stuff in fedora is similar to the ATrpms packages -- nx is obsolete. If you happen to know the co-maintainer, could you ask him/her to update it?
So, currently, what CentOS provides is most up-to-date. :-D
Manuel "I'll be more attentive after I grab some sleep. I promise"
I thought you never sleep, Manuel. :-P
Akemi
On 08/18/2010 09:39 PM, Akemi Yagi wrote:
Oh, but ... on my Fedora 13 box, I have:
rpm -qa | grep nx nxclient-3.4.0-7.x86_64 freenx-client-0.9-10.fc11.x86_64 freenx-server-0.7.3-18.fc13.x86_64 nxcl-0.9-10.fc11.x86_64 nx-3.3.0-38.fc12.x86_64 qtnx-0.9-10.fc11.x86_64
But yet, despite my previous errior, the packages are not branched for EPEL, so my previous evaluation ( no conflicts ) still stands.
Yes, that agrees with my previous post regarding "no NX in EPEL".
Actually the stuff in fedora is similar to the ATrpms packages -- nx is obsolete. If you happen to know the co-maintainer, could you ask him/her to update it?
No, I do not know him except for occasional bug reviews. But a RFE via bugzilla.r.c can be filed by anyone :)
So, currently, what CentOS provides is most up-to-date. :-D
Manuel "I'll be more attentive after I grab some sleep. I promise"
I thought you never sleep, Manuel. :-P
Heh... I have to, once in a while.
On 8/18/2010 1:39 PM, Akemi Yagi wrote:
But yet, despite my previous errior, the packages are not branched for EPEL, so my previous evaluation ( no conflicts ) still stands.
Yes, that agrees with my previous post regarding "no NX in EPEL".
Hmmm, sorry - I'm not sure why I thought it was. Maybe I confused it with backuppc as something that overlapped.
-
Akemi Yagi -
Karanbir Singh -
Les Mikesell -
Manuel Wolfshant