Hi, I'm packaging a software which needs this. I found that this one in Fedora is really old. Current version is 1.19. Can you push an update for f18/19/rawhide? Thanks!
Besides, please clean some old stuffs like: 1. BuildRoot tag; 2. rm -rf buildroot in %install section; 3. %clean section 4. defattr Thanks again!
(In reply to Christopher Meng from comment #0) > I'm packaging a software which needs this. Which package are you referring to? > I found that this one in Fedora is really old. Correct, it's primary maintainer is AWOL for years. > Current version is 1.19. a) The current version Debian stable ships is 1.18. b) Barring the fact Fedora's fakeroot is outdated, why do you need a more recent version than what currently is in Fedora and Debian?
(In reply to Ralf Corsepius from comment #2) > (In reply to Christopher Meng from comment #0) > > I'm packaging a software which needs this. > Which package are you referring to? Why do you ask this? > > I found that this one in Fedora is really old. > Correct, it's primary maintainer is AWOL for years. > > > Current version is 1.19. > a) The current version Debian stable ships is 1.18. Why do you choose Debian? > b) Barring the fact Fedora's fakeroot is outdated, why do you need a more > recent version than what currently is in Fedora and Debian? Seems Fedora is 'bleeding-edge', but when you check out some packages, do you agree bleeding? http://pkgs.org/search/?keyword=fakeroot
(In reply to Christopher Meng from comment #3) > (In reply to Ralf Corsepius from comment #2) > > (In reply to Christopher Meng from comment #0) > > > I'm packaging a software which needs this. > > Which package are you referring to? > > Why do you ask this? Because I want to understand the reasons for this request. In particular, I want to understand whether the reasons for this request are of a technical nature or if this is just "versionitis". Provided the differences between 1.12.x and 1.18.x seem small enhancements, AFAICT, I am having difficulties in imaginating technical reasons for this request. > > > I found that this one in Fedora is really old. > > Correct, it's primary maintainer is AWOL for years. > > > > > Current version is 1.19. > > a) The current version Debian stable ships is 1.18. > > Why do you choose Debian? fakeroot's upstream is Debian, with its primary users being Debianish buildsystems/~tools. It's not of much use on RH/Fedora-based distros. > > b) Barring the fact Fedora's fakeroot is outdated, why do you need a more > > recent version than what currently is in Fedora and Debian? > > Seems Fedora is 'bleeding-edge', Well, independently of whether one agrees with this claim (I do not agree), it doesn't mean Fedora is swallowing all "unstable" versions, some arbitrary upstreams release - Stability still has precedence. Fakeroot's current "stable" version is 1.18.4.
(In reply to Ralf Corsepius from comment #4) > Because I want to understand the reasons for this request. Ok, I'm packaging some software which was written under Debian/Ubuntu(sorry I'm not sure about this). It requires root access to install the software, I first checked the debian rules of it and found that it requires fakeroot, then I think there must be something wrong with its makefile(proved to correct). So I don't need it now. > In particular, I want to understand whether the reasons for this request are > of a technical nature or if this is just "versionitis". The latter one. > fakeroot's upstream is Debian, with its primary users being Debianish > buildsystems/~tools. It's not of much use on RH/Fedora-based distros. What is rational is actual and what is actual is rational. If someboday has packaged it into Fedora, we should keep it up to date. > Well, independently of whether one agrees with this claim (I do not agree), > it doesn't mean Fedora is swallowing all "unstable" versions, some arbitrary > upstreams release - Stability still has precedence. > > Fakeroot's current "stable" version is 1.18.4. Ok, then I request 1.18. ;) The fact is when I checked this software(I always compare versions between various distros via pkgs.org), I found it's really old, if other distros have updated it, why can't Fedora? Is it a good reason?
fakeroot-1.18.4-1.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/fakeroot-1.18.4-1.fc19
fakeroot-1.18.4-1.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/fakeroot-1.18.4-1.fc18
(In reply to Christopher Meng from comment #5) > (In reply to Ralf Corsepius from comment #4) > > Because I want to understand the reasons for this request. > > Ok, I'm packaging some software which was written under Debian/Ubuntu(sorry > I'm not sure about this). It requires root access to install the software, I > first checked the debian rules of it and found that it requires fakeroot, > then I think there must be something wrong with its makefile(proved to > correct). So I don't need it now. Debian rules often apply fakeroot, because of historic weaknesses with Debian's buildsystem and implementors not knowing any better but to resort to using fakeroot. > The fact is when I checked this software(I always compare versions between > various distros via pkgs.org), I found it's really old, if other distros > have updated it, why can't Fedora? > > Is it a good reason? No, this is not a good reason. Incompatbile APIs and serious bugs having been fix would be good reasons.
OK
Package fakeroot-1.18.4-1.fc19: * should fix your issue, * was pushed to the Fedora 19 testing repository, * should be available at your local mirror within two days. Update it with: # su -c 'yum update --enablerepo=updates-testing fakeroot-1.18.4-1.fc19' as soon as you are able to. Please go to the following url: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-13762/fakeroot-1.18.4-1.fc19 then log in and leave karma (feedback).
fakeroot-1.18.4-1.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
fakeroot-1.18.4-1.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.