Hi all:
Has abiword been removed in FC4t1? I haven't been able to locate it and wasn't able to find it in the Fedora EXTRAS list of packages.
Does OOwriter open an abiword document? When I tried all I got was an error "general input/output error". If not, how can I convert the files in *.abw format to something I can use.
TIA, Tom
On Sat, 2005-03-19 at 00:36 -0800, Thomas Taylor wrote:
Hi all:
Has abiword been removed in FC4t1? I haven't been able to locate it and wasn't able to find it in the Fedora EXTRAS list of packages.
abiword was built into the fedora extra development tree - this is what you should use for fc4t1.
-sv
On Sat, 2005-03-19 at 22:39 +0000, David Woodhouse wrote:
On Sat, 2005-03-19 at 03:39 -0500, seth vidal wrote:
abiword was built into the fedora extra development tree
Please could you give a pointer to the resulting binary RPMS for i386, x86_64 and ppc?
For i386 and x86_64: http://download.fedora.redhat.com/pub/fedora/linux/extras/development/
click on your arch.
-sv
On Sat, 2005-03-19 at 19:14 -0500, seth vidal wrote:
For i386 and x86_64: http://download.fedora.redhat.com/pub/fedora/linux/extras/development/
click on your arch.
As you implied, my arch isn't there.
Is there any word yet on when the Extras build system will be set up? You do sterling service as a manual build system, but it's not really a long-term solution :)
On Sun, 2005-03-20 at 06:47 +0000, David Woodhouse wrote:
On Sat, 2005-03-19 at 19:14 -0500, seth vidal wrote:
For i386 and x86_64: http://download.fedora.redhat.com/pub/fedora/linux/extras/development/
click on your arch.
As you implied, my arch isn't there.
Is there any word yet on when the Extras build system will be set up? You do sterling service as a manual build system, but it's not really a long-term solution :)
right now what we've got is a mach modification that supports yum and comps-style groups. Paul Nasrat has tested mach on ppc and everything appears to be normal. There are some odd things here and there but nothing crazy. As I explained on the buildsys-list - we need to get the automation glue in place to call mach for building the packages. I asked for requirements and what the red hat coloc infrastructure looks like earlier this week but I've not gotten much in the way of a response. It's kinda hard to work on scripts for the build system when you have no idea what the shape of things are on the build machines :)
Quite frankly, I need more input to move ahead, especially considering I've got no access to those systems :)
Now, wrt ppc/ppc64 - last I heard Karen had a ppc machine lined up for red hat's use - Talk to gdk about what its status is - he has it on his todo list to ping karen.
-sv
On Sun, 2005-03-20 at 03:14 -0500, seth vidal wrote:
It's kinda hard to work on scripts for the build system when you have no idea what the shape of things are on the build machines :)
Quite frankly, I need more input to move ahead, especially considering I've got no access to those systems :)
Fair enough; thanks for the information.
When I say that Extras is nowhere near being ready for use as an excuse for dumping packages for FC4, that is no reflection on your own efforts.
In FC5, following the stated policy of 'no more than one of anything' by dumping the second and third MTAs, the second implementation of SSH, the second implementation of zlib etc. makes some sense. That policy can be sane when Extras is really working, and when the policy is actually followed consistently.
For me the following key packages are missing from both FC4t1 and the link below
Gnumeric Exim
any reason why?
For i386 and x86_64: http://download.fedora.redhat.com/pub/fedora/linux/extras/development/
click on your arch.
-sv
On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 11:59:55 +0100, mike wrote:
For me the following key packages are missing from both FC4t1 and the link below
Gnumeric Exim
any reason why?
For i386 and x86_64: http://download.fedora.redhat.com/pub/fedora/linux/extras/development/
click on your arch.
For gnumeric, see: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/152387 For exim, probably still waiting for a new maintainer: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/OrphanedPackages
On Sat, 2005-03-19 at 00:36 -0800, Thomas Taylor wrote:
Hi all:
Has abiword been removed in FC4t1? I haven't been able to locate it and wasn't able to find it in the Fedora EXTRAS list of packages.
You were probably looking in the FC3 Extras. There is a rawhide branch now, which mostly works. Not quite sure where to report bugs though. fedora-extras-list? bugzilla? Here? The major one I've seen so far is packages built against python 2.3 and hence uninstallable for 2.4
http://download.fedora.redhat.com/pub/fedora/linux/extras/development/i386/a...
On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 00:52:14 -0800, Aaron Kurtz wrote:
Has abiword been removed in FC4t1? I haven't been able to locate it and wasn't able to find it in the Fedora EXTRAS list of packages.
You were probably looking in the FC3 Extras. There is a rawhide branch now, which mostly works. Not quite sure where to report bugs though. fedora-extras-list? bugzilla? Here? The major one I've seen so far is packages built against python 2.3 and hence uninstallable for 2.4
Most of the packages in Fedora Extras Development are just copies of their FC3 counterparts. This is how the tree was filled with packages, creating such pitfalls as the broken python dependencies you've noticed. It's a pitty the tree was not filled with a mass-rebuild.
Only some package have been rebuilt and/or updated yet. This is ongoing manual work.
Most of the packages in Fedora Extras Development are just copies of their FC3 counterparts. This is how the tree was filled with packages, creating such pitfalls as the broken python dependencies you've noticed. It's a pitty the tree was not filled with a mass-rebuild.
Okay michael, i'm sorry you feel "it's a pity". I asked on maintainers as to which path to take, I received a number of answers via irc and other locations and the general answer was "merge fc3's extras in, fix the ones that break".
I'll rebuild anything that comes up and I'm working all the time on the build system, what else can I do to keep you from lamenting extras in the way you do?
-sv
On Sat, Mar 19, 2005 at 10:47:42AM -0500, seth vidal wrote:
... and the general answer was "merge fc3's extras in, fix the ones that break".
I am not sure if I understand. I thought that here we were talking about packages which were not in fc3's extras but were recently dropped from rawhide with an understanding that they are (basically?) going to extras so this is something quite a bit different to merge. Number of these packages had various amounts of work done while in rawhide. Bugs were reported and fixed and so on. Sure, some may need rebuilding but you do not suggest, I hope, that all this work has to be restarted from scratch?
In particular abiword as it was fairly recently in rawhide was not the same one as that from FC3 (and surely it is not in extras there). Moreover ooffice not only does not know how to open abiword "native" files but it also cannot handle other formats, like WordPerfect and various RTF, which are not a problem for abiword.
Michal
On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 10:21:35 -0700, Michal Jaegermann michal@harddata.com wrote:
I am not sure if I understand. I thought that here we were talking about packages which were not in fc3's extras but were recently dropped from rawhide with an understanding that they are (basically?)
There are 2 groups of packages in the extras development tree. There are packages that are freshly built and there are packages that were imported from the fc3 extras tree and not been rebuilt yet. This thread had mentioned both to some extent. abiword would be a fresh build and the python packages that still require python2.3 are examples things pulled in from fc3 extras without a rebuild.. both have been mentioned in this thread so far.
Anyone who is an avid rawhide user should be quite familiar with this sort of situation. The development tree saw the same sort of python problem with some python packages when python2.4 was introduced. As you come across packaging problems in the extras development tree, file them in bugzilla and packages will get rebuilt I'm pretty sure at some point a large scale rebuild of this tree will happen before fc4 release, but in the meantime this approach is the quickest way to get packages out to testers.
-jef"i personally like to think of this tree as 'extraraw' and it lusts for the sweet taste of human baby flesh with a desire as pure as my own insatiable urge for krispy kreme doughnuts"spaleta
On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 10:47:42 -0500, seth vidal wrote:
Most of the packages in Fedora Extras Development are just copies of their FC3 counterparts. This is how the tree was filled with packages, creating such pitfalls as the broken python dependencies you've noticed. It's a pitty the tree was not filled with a mass-rebuild.
Okay michael, i'm sorry you feel "it's a pity". I asked on maintainers as to which path to take, I received a number of answers via irc and other locations and the general answer was "merge fc3's extras in, fix the ones that break".
I'll rebuild anything that comes up and I'm working all the time on the build system, what else can I do to keep you from lamenting extras in the way you do?
You can't do anything else, because I disagree with the current procedure, and that's it.
On Sat, 2005-03-19 at 00:52 -0800, Aaron Kurtz wrote:
On Sat, 2005-03-19 at 00:36 -0800, Thomas Taylor wrote:
Hi all:
Has abiword been removed in FC4t1? I haven't been able to locate it and wasn't able to find it in the Fedora EXTRAS list of packages.
You were probably looking in the FC3 Extras. There is a rawhide branch now, which mostly works. Not quite sure where to report bugs though. fedora-extras-list? bugzilla? Here? The major one I've seen so far is packages built against python 2.3 and hence uninstallable for 2.4
bugs go in bugzilla.
I want to say this loud and clear:
Fedora Extras Development operates just like Fedora Core Development. It will break, it will have loose and broken dependencies. This happens. Until all the packages are rebuilt you will routinely have things be sideways.
Ask for rebuilds in bug reports and we'll get them done.
this is no different than how fedora core is handled.
-sv
On Saturday 19 March 2005 00:52, Aaron Kurtz wrote:
On Sat, 2005-03-19 at 00:36 -0800, Thomas Taylor wrote:
Hi all:
Has abiword been removed in FC4t1? I haven't been able to locate it and wasn't able to find it in the Fedora EXTRAS list of packages.
You were probably looking in the FC3 Extras. There is a rawhide branch now, which mostly works. Not quite sure where to report bugs though. fedora-extras-list? bugzilla? Here? The major one I've seen so far is packages built against python 2.3 and hence uninstallable for 2.4
http://download.fedora.redhat.com/pub/fedora/linux/extras/development/i386/ abiword-2.2.5-3.i386.rpm
Thanks Seth, Aaron and Chuck for the help. I managed to d/l abiword from the extras devel tree finally. Now just have to clean up all the failed dependencies shown below.
errors from rpm <<<<<
[tom@localhost temp1]$ rpm -ivh abiword-2.2.5-3.i386.rpm warning: abiword-2.2.5-3.i386.rpm: Header V3 DSA signature: NOKEY, key ID 1ac70ce6 error: Failed dependencies: aiksaurus-gtk >= 1.2.1 is needed by abiword-2.2.5-3.i386 enchant is needed by abiword-2.2.5-3.i386 libAiksaurus-1.2.so.0 is needed by abiword-2.2.5-3.i386 libAiksaurusGTK-1.2.so.0 is needed by abiword-2.2.5-3.i386 libenchant.so.1 is needed by abiword-2.2.5-3.i386 libgnomedb >= 1.0.4 is needed by abiword-2.2.5-3.i386 libots-1.so.0 is needed by abiword-2.2.5-3.i386
Also, need to clear up some missunderstandings. Abiword was included in the FC3 core release, not the FC3 extras. I never added any extras with the FC3 release. Apparently it was moved to extras for FC4.
Anyway, thanks for the help.
Tom
On Sat, Mar 19, 2005 at 03:00:12PM -0800, Thomas Taylor wrote:
Thanks Seth, Aaron and Chuck for the help. I managed to d/l abiword from the extras devel tree finally. Now just have to clean up all the failed dependencies shown below.
errors from rpm <<<<<
[tom@localhost temp1]$ rpm -ivh abiword-2.2.5-3.i386.rpm warning: abiword-2.2.5-3.i386.rpm: Header V3 DSA signature: NOKEY, key ID 1ac70ce6 error: Failed dependencies: aiksaurus-gtk >= 1.2.1 is needed by abiword-2.2.5-3.i386 enchant is needed by abiword-2.2.5-3.i386 libAiksaurus-1.2.so.0 is needed by abiword-2.2.5-3.i386 libAiksaurusGTK-1.2.so.0 is needed by abiword-2.2.5-3.i386 libenchant.so.1 is needed by abiword-2.2.5-3.i386 libgnomedb >= 1.0.4 is needed by abiword-2.2.5-3.i386 libots-1.so.0 is needed by abiword-2.2.5-3.i386
enchant and aiksaurus are other packages which were dropped recently from FC. Presumably they will migrate to extras or this already happened. This is somewhat strange in a case of enchant as its description says "A library that wraps other spell checking backends". A common wrapper which you have to find somewhere "outside" does not sound that useful.
Also, need to clear up some missunderstandings. Abiword was included in the FC3 core release, not the FC3 extras.
Lots of things were in core and are not there anymore. A list is rather extensive. Moving to extras big fat pigs like openoffice or eclipse would be much more effective.
Michal
On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 16:47:00 -0700, Michal Jaegermann wrote:
On Sat, Mar 19, 2005 at 03:00:12PM -0800, Thomas Taylor wrote:
Thanks Seth, Aaron and Chuck for the help. I managed to d/l abiword from the extras devel tree finally. Now just have to clean up all the failed dependencies shown below.
> errors from rpm <<<<<
[tom@localhost temp1]$ rpm -ivh abiword-2.2.5-3.i386.rpm warning: abiword-2.2.5-3.i386.rpm: Header V3 DSA signature: NOKEY, key ID 1ac70ce6 error: Failed dependencies: aiksaurus-gtk >= 1.2.1 is needed by abiword-2.2.5-3.i386 enchant is needed by abiword-2.2.5-3.i386 libAiksaurus-1.2.so.0 is needed by abiword-2.2.5-3.i386 libAiksaurusGTK-1.2.so.0 is needed by abiword-2.2.5-3.i386 libenchant.so.1 is needed by abiword-2.2.5-3.i386 libgnomedb >= 1.0.4 is needed by abiword-2.2.5-3.i386 libots-1.so.0 is needed by abiword-2.2.5-3.i386
enchant and aiksaurus are other packages which were dropped recently from FC. Presumably they will migrate to extras or this already happened.
They are in there already. Thomas should have used yum to install abiword from the repository and not download the single abiword package manually.
On Sun, 2005-03-20 at 02:09 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 16:47:00 -0700, Michal Jaegermann wrote:
On Sat, Mar 19, 2005 at 03:00:12PM -0800, Thomas Taylor wrote:
enchant and aiksaurus are other packages which were dropped recently from FC. Presumably they will migrate to extras or this already happened.
They are in there already. Thomas should have used yum to install abiword from the repository and not download the single abiword package manually.
Yes. Stick a fedora-extras-devel.repo in /etc/yum.repos.d/ to take care of this. Here's mine. There doesn't seem to be mirrors for this up yet.
[extras] name=Fedora Extras - $releasever - $basearch baseurl=http://download.fedora.redhat.com/pub/fedora/linux/extras/development/$basea... gpgcheck=0
lør, 19 03 2005 kl. 17:21 -0800, skrev Aaron Kurtz:
On Sun, 2005-03-20 at 02:09 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 16:47:00 -0700, Michal Jaegermann wrote:
On Sat, Mar 19, 2005 at 03:00:12PM -0800, Thomas Taylor wrote:
enchant and aiksaurus are other packages which were dropped recently from FC. Presumably they will migrate to extras or this already happened.
They are in there already. Thomas should have used yum to install abiword from the repository and not download the single abiword package manually.
Yes. Stick a fedora-extras-devel.repo in /etc/yum.repos.d/ to take care of this. Here's mine. There doesn't seem to be mirrors for this up yet.
[extras] name=Fedora Extras - $releasever - $basearch baseurl=http://download.fedora.redhat.com/pub/fedora/linux/extras/development/$basea... gpgcheck=0
Of course then this happens:
Error: Missing Dependency: libgnomedb >= 1.0.4 is needed by package abiword
I would love to file a bug, but neither abiword nor libgnomedb (which is completely missing) are present in bugzilla under extras.
Kind regards David Nielsen
On Sat, 2005-03-19 at 21:41 -0500, seth vidal wrote:
Of course then this happens:
Error: Missing Dependency: libgnomedb >= 1.0.4 is needed by package abiword
That one I know about. I've been waiting to hear when libgnomedb and gda are going to be checked in and builds requested.
They were checked in as libgnomedb and libgda around the same time as ots/enchant/et. al.
I'd have requested a build for all those packages except http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/NewPackageProcess says "Edit http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras_2fFC4Status page and add your package to the "build needed" section." while edit on that page says "You are not allowed to edit this page.". I didn't bother following up any further because I couldn't actually believe that you were manually building the packages yourself :-)
C.
I'd have requested a build for all those packages except http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/NewPackageProcess says "Edit http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras_2fFC4Status page and add your package to the "build needed" section." while edit on that page says "You are not allowed to edit this page.". I didn't bother following up any further because I couldn't actually believe that you were manually building the packages yourself :-)
I'm not building them all that manually.
I do type in:
./build.sh pkg1 pkg2 pkg3
but everything else just happens.
-sv
On Saturday 19 March 2005 18:41, seth vidal wrote:
Of course then this happens:
Error: Missing Dependency: libgnomedb >= 1.0.4 is needed by package abiword
That one I know about. I've been waiting to hear when libgnomedb and gda are going to be checked in and builds requested.
-sv
Hi Seth:
Is there any idea on when libgnomedb will be added to the development tree? I still am unable to install abiword because this dependency is missing.
Thanks, Tom
Hi Seth:
Is there any idea on when libgnomedb will be added to the development tree? I still am unable to install abiword because this dependency is missing.
There was a broken dep problem in rawhide w/scrollkeeper, It's been resolved now so the build finished. It'll get pushed out tonight before the west wing comes on. :)
-sv
On Wednesday 23 March 2005 12:50, seth vidal wrote:
Hi Seth:
Is there any idea on when libgnomedb will be added to the development tree? I still am unable to install abiword because this dependency is missing.
There was a broken dep problem in rawhide w/scrollkeeper, It's been resolved now so the build finished. It'll get pushed out tonight before the west wing comes on. :)
-sv
Success! - Finally able to download the Abiword program but not until getting completely frustated with yum. When it eventually got past the libgnomedb problem it ran into another dependency problem. GRRRR.
Then, thanks to a suggestion from "gslink", I went to the Abiword site where I found out about the ".package" format for installing programs. I actually finds the dependencies and downloads then so there aren't any dependency errors. Selection of programs so far is limited but when something works well it will surely grow.
Thanks, Tom
Success! - Finally able to download the Abiword program but not until getting completely frustated with yum. When it eventually got past the libgnomedb problem it ran into another dependency problem. GRRRR.
Another dep related to abiword?
I yum installed abiword after pushing libgnomedb and it worked fine.
what dep problem did you run into?
-sv
On Friday 25 March 2005 23:53, seth vidal wrote:
Success! - Finally able to download the Abiword program but not until getting completely frustated with yum. When it eventually got past the libgnomedb problem it ran into another dependency problem. GRRRR.
Another dep related to abiword?
I yum installed abiword after pushing libgnomedb and it worked fine.
what dep problem did you run into?
-sv
I believe it was libgda or something similar. Unfortunately I was tired at the time and didn't save the message.
Another problem is that I was not always using the repos from the Fedora project sites but ones obtained from some of the emails on the list which didn't have ALL of the repositories listed.
Thanks for the reply and the great job you guys are doing.
Tom
On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 03:39:17 +0100, David Nielsen wrote:
I would love to file a bug, but neither abiword nor libgnomedb (which is completely missing) are present in bugzilla under extras.
Yes, it's known already that for 2-3 dozen recent imports, nobody has requested creation of bugzilla components.
I requested one for "abiword" a minute ago. But for other packages, I'm not sure who will own them or what e-mail address to fill in.
-
Aaron Kurtz -
Caolán McNamara -
Chuck Anderson -
David Nielsen -
David Woodhouse -
Jef Spaleta -
Michael Schwendt -
Michal Jaegermann -
Mike old -
seth vidal -
Thomas Taylor