Am 10.11.2015 um 13:05 schrieb Sérgio Basto:
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3815fine, don't apply to gstreamer ugly and honestly i don't understand why developers / maintainers not install their own dogfood to find out such major breaks weeks ago or just don't bump so-names shortly befor the Fedora version goes goldReindl HaraldYou should understand that you are not helping with this kind of comments , you are lucky have packages of RPMFusion for F23 , what do you mean by "don't apply to gstreamer ugly" ? , developers / maintainers don't have the access to infra, they can't commit anywhere, because infra still being build , and noone knows how it will end. where is the bug report?
"they can't commit anywhere" and "noone knows how it will end" means what? how are the packages with broken deps built?
"what do you mean by "don't apply to gstreamer ugly" - the initial mail was pretty clear, seems to be solved in the meantime, i had to REMOVE the requires from my metapackages to be able upgrade to F23
i simply expect that whoever is repsonsible for a package has the "updates-testing" repos enabled and verify that it is installable, not more and not less, that do not need bugreports at all
-------- Weitergeleitete Nachricht -------- Betreff: what about soname bumps and rebuilds Datum: Mon, 2 Nov 2015 15:35:06 +0100 Von: Reindl Harald <[email protected]>Antwort an: RPM Fusion users discussion list <[email protected]>
Organisation: the lounge interactive design An: Mailing-List rpmfusion <[email protected]> Fedora 23 * x264 so 148 * avidemux requires so 142 * the gstreamer ugly requires so 142 why does that happen *everytime* when somebody decides to bump x264 without take care of rebuild depending packages?
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
