Re: Why does git merge have so much trouble with Fedora package branches?

2011-11-10 Thread Vratislav Podzimek
On Wed, 2011-11-09 at 18:48 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote: On Thu, 2011-11-10 at 10:29 +0800, Mathieu Bridon wrote: On Wed, 2011-11-09 at 21:20 -0500, Simo Sorce wrote: On Wed, 2011-11-09 at 17:46 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote: I'm currently going through and bumping several packages whose

Re: Why does git merge have so much trouble with Fedora package branches?

2011-11-10 Thread Fabian Deutsch
Am Donnerstag, den 10.11.2011, 10:36 +0100 schrieb Vratislav Podzimek: On Wed, 2011-11-09 at 18:48 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote: On Thu, 2011-11-10 at 10:29 +0800, Mathieu Bridon wrote: On Wed, 2011-11-09 at 21:20 -0500, Simo Sorce wrote: On Wed, 2011-11-09 at 17:46 -0800, Adam

Re: rubygem macro error

2011-11-10 Thread Vít Ondruch
Dne 9.11.2011 17:02, Paul Wouters napsal(a): On Wed, 9 Nov 2011, Alex Dalitz wrote: (CC:ed Fedora-devel, we're trying to figure out the ruby bug with %3d ri-doc names) I tried using yours and i had to make some xoes for it to build. It used ruby-gems instead of rubygems. The was a = - =3D

Re: Why does git merge have so much trouble with Fedora package branches?

2011-11-10 Thread Vratislav Podzimek
On Thu, 2011-11-10 at 10:52 +0100, Fabian Deutsch wrote: Am Donnerstag, den 10.11.2011, 10:36 +0100 schrieb Vratislav Podzimek: On Wed, 2011-11-09 at 18:48 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote: On Thu, 2011-11-10 at 10:29 +0800, Mathieu Bridon wrote: On Wed, 2011-11-09 at 21:20 -0500, Simo Sorce

Re: Why does git merge have so much trouble with Fedora package branches?

2011-11-10 Thread Mathieu Bridon
On Thu, 2011-11-10 at 11:43 +0100, Vratislav Podzimek wrote: On Thu, 2011-11-10 at 10:52 +0100, Fabian Deutsch wrote: Am Donnerstag, den 10.11.2011, 10:36 +0100 schrieb Vratislav Podzimek: Isn't it better to use 'git rebase'? E.g. on master use 'git rebase f16'. As I understand it, it

Re: Upgrading libpng: shall we move to 1.4.x or 1.5.x?

2011-11-10 Thread Nils Philippsen
On Wed, 2011-11-09 at 10:42 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: Nils Philippsen n...@redhat.com writes: On Fri, 2011-11-04 at 13:12 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: I plan to provide the 1.2.x libpng shared library (and only the library, not its devel support files) in a libpng-compat subpackage for the time

Re: Why does git merge have so much trouble with Fedora package branches?

2011-11-10 Thread Neil Horman
On Wed, Nov 09, 2011 at 05:46:57PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote: I'm currently going through and bumping several packages whose Rawhide builds have got behind their F16 builds. I've come across several packages where git merge hit 'conflicts' for no readily apparently reason in this case.

Re: Why does git merge have so much trouble with Fedora package branches?

2011-11-10 Thread Michael J Gruber
Adam Williamson venit, vidit, dixit 10.11.2011 02:46: I'm currently going through and bumping several packages whose Rawhide builds have got behind their F16 builds. I've come across several packages where git merge hit 'conflicts' for no readily apparently reason in this case. Take the

Re: rubygem macro error

2011-11-10 Thread Scott Schmit
On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 11:26:11AM +0100, Vít Ondruch wrote: Dne 9.11.2011 17:02, Paul Wouters napsal(a): On Wed, 9 Nov 2011, Alex Dalitz wrote: The %3d characters in the filenames are because the Ruby setter methods are named variable_name= - this is a common pattern across all Ruby

Re: Why does git merge have so much trouble with Fedora package branches?

2011-11-10 Thread Simo Sorce
On Thu, 2011-11-10 at 10:52 +0100, Fabian Deutsch wrote: Am Donnerstag, den 10.11.2011, 10:36 +0100 schrieb Vratislav Podzimek: On Wed, 2011-11-09 at 18:48 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote: On Thu, 2011-11-10 at 10:29 +0800, Mathieu Bridon wrote: On Wed, 2011-11-09 at 21:20 -0500, Simo Sorce

Re: Why does git merge have so much trouble with Fedora package branches?

2011-11-10 Thread Simo Sorce
On Thu, 2011-11-10 at 19:07 +0800, Mathieu Bridon wrote: On Thu, 2011-11-10 at 11:43 +0100, Vratislav Podzimek wrote: On Thu, 2011-11-10 at 10:52 +0100, Fabian Deutsch wrote: Am Donnerstag, den 10.11.2011, 10:36 +0100 schrieb Vratislav Podzimek: Isn't it better to use 'git rebase'? E.g.

Re: Why does git merge have so much trouble with Fedora package branches?

2011-11-10 Thread Tom Hughes
On 10/11/11 13:38, Simo Sorce wrote: On Thu, 2011-11-10 at 19:07 +0800, Mathieu Bridon wrote: Yes, in case of such a fast-forward then rebasing gives the same result as merging. No, you are dead wrong here. Merging does *join* the history of 2 branches in git, and the top commit has

Re: Why does git merge have so much trouble with Fedora package branches?

2011-11-10 Thread Richard Shaw
On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 7:46 PM, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote: I'm currently going through and bumping several packages whose Rawhide builds have got behind their F16 builds. I've come across several packages where git merge hit 'conflicts' for no readily apparently reason in this

Re: Why does git merge have so much trouble with Fedora package branches?

2011-11-10 Thread Simo Sorce
On Thu, 2011-11-10 at 13:27 +0100, Michael J Gruber wrote: I'm sorry but the reason is that people don't know git workflows. I guess it depends on what is the maintainer preferred workflow. I personally hate git merge, especially for stuff so simple as fedora trees. It gives no advantages I can

Re: Why does git merge have so much trouble with Fedora package branches?

2011-11-10 Thread Nathaniel McCallum
On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 8:46 PM, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote: I'm currently going through and bumping several packages whose Rawhide builds have got behind their F16 builds. I've come across several packages where git merge hit 'conflicts' for no readily apparently reason in this

Re: Why does git merge have so much trouble with Fedora package branches?

2011-11-10 Thread Simo Sorce
On Thu, 2011-11-10 at 13:46 +, Tom Hughes wrote: On 10/11/11 13:38, Simo Sorce wrote: On Thu, 2011-11-10 at 19:07 +0800, Mathieu Bridon wrote: Yes, in case of such a fast-forward then rebasing gives the same result as merging. No, you are dead wrong here. Merging does *join* the

Re: F17 heads up: X server git snapshots

2011-11-10 Thread Adam Jackson
On Wed, 2011-11-09 at 16:14 -0500, Adam Jackson wrote: I'm currently rebuilding the X stack for F17, and we'll be tracking git snapshots of the X server and drivers until xserver 1.12 comes out. I don't know yet how many of the drivers will ftbfs now, so --skip-broken might be your friend for

Re: Differences between koji and mock rawhide environments?

2011-11-10 Thread Tom Lane
Honza Horak hho...@redhat.com writes: On 11/09/2011 11:54 PM, Tom Lane wrote: That was the first thing I thought of, but the failure originally occurred yesterday in koji, and I still can't reproduce it today in mock. I don't know what has changed from yesterday (instead that I've upgraded

Re: rubygem macro error

2011-11-10 Thread Toshio Kuratomi
On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 03:19:07PM +0100, Vít Ondruch wrote: Dne 10.11.2011 13:57, Scott Schmit napsal(a): Yes, but the purpose of URL encoding is to reach resources that are named using reserved characters. So, for the filename you showed above, the correct URL would be:

Re: Differences between koji and mock rawhide environments?

2011-11-10 Thread Garrett Holmstrom
On 2011-11-10 8:35, Tom Lane wrote: (And why is glibc ignoring the convention to use %{?dist} in Release:?) There is a bug open for this. Note that dist tags are still optional. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=676755 -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Why does git merge have so much trouble with Fedora package branches?

2011-11-10 Thread Garrett Holmstrom
On 2011-11-09 18:48, Adam Williamson wrote: thanks both of you; I hadn't really thought about the consequences of merging vs. cherry-picking, I think I'd just cargo-culted from somewhere the idea of using git merge instead of manually re-doing changes without considering cherry-picking

[Bug 691913] ocaml-camlp5 pretty printer bug

2011-11-10 Thread bugzilla
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=691913 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added

[Bug 751751] perl-IO-Socket-SSL failing to return last line of data

2011-11-10 Thread bugzilla
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=751751 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added

Re: Why does git merge have so much trouble with Fedora package branches?

2011-11-10 Thread Josh Stone
On 11/10/2011 10:15 AM, Jesse Keating wrote: On Nov 10, 2011, at 1:52 AM, Fabian Deutsch wrote: Someone might correct me, but rebasing introduces problems for co-maintainers, if upstream (maintainer) decides to rebase some branch. See http://man.he.net/man1/git-rebase Our repo setup

Re: Why does git merge have so much trouble with Fedora package branches?

2011-11-10 Thread Jesse Keating
On Nov 10, 2011, at 10:23 AM, Josh Stone wrote: On 11/10/2011 10:15 AM, Jesse Keating wrote: On Nov 10, 2011, at 1:52 AM, Fabian Deutsch wrote: Someone might correct me, but rebasing introduces problems for co-maintainers, if upstream (maintainer) decides to rebase some branch. See

Re: Why does git merge have so much trouble with Fedora package branches?

2011-11-10 Thread Jason L Tibbitts III
JK == Jesse Keating jkeat...@redhat.com writes: JK I don't believe you can delete a branch remotely, I think releng has JK to do it on the server. Yes, you could still ask releng to delete a JK branch, then you could re-create it with the same name and have the JK same net effect, however we

llvm and ldc build problem, request your advise

2011-11-10 Thread jonathan
dear, I have a problem with llvm 2.9 build fail http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/getfile?taskID=3505349name=build.log but if i rebuild llvm from src.rpm build success I have some other D library to add but until i have this problem i can't do more Thanks for any help kind regards -- devel

Re: Differences between koji and mock rawhide environments?

2011-11-10 Thread Tom Lane
I wrote: [ concerning failure to rebuild postgresql in rawhide ] The actual failure seems to be due to some change in Python error traceback behavior. After more thorough investigation, it seems to be a gcc optimization bug: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=752905 which makes the

Re: Why does git merge have so much trouble with Fedora package branches?

2011-11-10 Thread Adam Williamson
On Thu, 2011-11-10 at 08:55 -0800, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 09:02:45AM -0500, Simo Sorce wrote: On Thu, 2011-11-10 at 13:27 +0100, Michael J Gruber wrote: I'm sorry but the reason is that people don't know git workflows. I guess it depends on what is the maintainer

Re: Why does git merge have so much trouble with Fedora package branches?

2011-11-10 Thread Toshio Kuratomi
On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 11:59:50AM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote: On Thu, 2011-11-10 at 08:55 -0800, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 09:02:45AM -0500, Simo Sorce wrote: On Thu, 2011-11-10 at 13:27 +0100, Michael J Gruber wrote: I'm sorry but the reason is that people don't

Re: Why does git merge have so much trouble with Fedora package branches?

2011-11-10 Thread Martin Langhoff
On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 2:59 PM, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote: My problem came in the case where someone has already *not* done this - they've updated f16 separately from, and more than, master, and I wanted to get them back in sync. If you want to keep merging as long as

Re: Why does git merge have so much trouble with Fedora package branches?

2011-11-10 Thread Bruno Wolff III
On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 12:38:16 -0800, Toshio Kuratomi a.bad...@gmail.com wrote: nod -- Although others have pointed out how to use git log and git cherry-pick to achieve that... I find it faster to use git merge and just remove the empty conflicts markers if I encounter this situation.

Re: Why does git merge have so much trouble with Fedora package branches?

2011-11-10 Thread Simo Sorce
On Thu, 2011-11-10 at 12:38 -0800, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 11:59:50AM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote: On Thu, 2011-11-10 at 08:55 -0800, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 09:02:45AM -0500, Simo Sorce wrote: On Thu, 2011-11-10 at 13:27 +0100, Michael J

Re: Why does git merge have so much trouble with Fedora package branches?

2011-11-10 Thread phantomjinx
Bruno Wolff III br...@wolff.to wrote: On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 12:38:16 -0800, Toshio Kuratomi a.bad...@gmail.com wrote: nod -- Although others have pointed out how to use git log and git cherry-pick to achieve that... I find it faster to use git merge and just remove the empty conflicts

Re: Why does git merge have so much trouble with Fedora package?branches?

2011-11-10 Thread Toshio Kuratomi
On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 09:37:38PM +, phantomjinx wrote: I would recommend rebasing branches against master up until they are pushed, if required to be shared. Doing so retains a linear history on the branch and can mean the branch commits can end up being fast forwarded onto master

Re: Why does git merge have so much trouble with Fedora package?branches?

2011-11-10 Thread Simo Sorce
On Thu, 2011-11-10 at 13:49 -0800, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 09:37:38PM +, phantomjinx wrote: I would recommend rebasing branches against master up until they are pushed, if required to be shared. Doing so retains a linear history on the branch and can

Re: gnome-scan package status confusion

2011-11-10 Thread Kevin Fenzi
On Wed, 9 Nov 2011 18:34:35 +0100 Michael Schwendt mschwe...@gmail.com wrote: Why is gnome-scan-0.6.2-7.fc15 offered in Fedora 16 when it has been retired months ago and is affected by serious crashers? The reports in bugzilla are without a reply from the assignee:

Fwd: Review Swap offer

2011-11-10 Thread Jiri Hladky
Hello everybody, I'm looking for the review swap. There is BZ https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=744339 Review Request: dieharder - Random number generator tester and timer Is anybody willing to review it in exchange that I will review your package? Thanks a lot Jirka -- devel

Re: gnome-scan package status confusion

2011-11-10 Thread Deji Akingunola
On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 5:14 PM, Kevin Fenzi ke...@scrye.com wrote: On Wed, 9 Nov 2011 18:34:35 +0100 Michael Schwendt mschwe...@gmail.com wrote: Why is gnome-scan-0.6.2-7.fc15 offered in Fedora 16 when it has been retired months ago and is affected by serious crashers? The reports in

Cannot upload sources to git repository

2011-11-10 Thread Casper
Hello, I have three approved packages : [1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=749320 [2] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=741129 [3] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=726080 I followed the link : http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/NewPackageProcess At

Re: F17 heads up: X server git snapshots

2011-11-10 Thread Adam Williamson
On Wed, 2011-11-09 at 16:14 -0500, Adam Jackson wrote: I'm currently rebuilding the X stack for F17, and we'll be tracking git snapshots of the X server and drivers until xserver 1.12 comes out. I don't know yet how many of the drivers will ftbfs now, so --skip-broken might be your friend for

PolicyKit not working in Rawhide?

2011-11-10 Thread Adam Williamson
Anyone else noticed this? Anything which needs interactive auth via PK doesn't seem to work: when I run virt-manager it doesn't ask me for the root password and then successfully list out the local VMs, it just immediately displays an error because it's not authorized to connect to libvirt. Can't

Re: Why does git merge have so much trouble with Fedora package branches?

2011-11-10 Thread Kevin Kofler
Adam Williamson wrote: Take the current state of gnome-power-manager. Master is at: commit dfd0f074a7d41d355da28180eae1bda5dc2bba66 Author: Richard Hughes rich...@hughsie.com Date: Mon Sep 26 16:58:28 2011 +0100 New upstream version. f16 is at: commit

Re: Why does git merge have so much trouble with Fedora package?branches?

2011-11-10 Thread Kevin Kofler
Toshio Kuratomi wrote: I'm a little leary of rebase... Everytime I've tried to use it in any project I've managed to get my checkout in a state where I had to make a fresh clone, do a manual diff between my old working tree and new one, and then delete the old clone. I know that other people

Re: Why does git merge have so much trouble with Fedora package branches?

2011-11-10 Thread Kevin Kofler
Simo Sorce wrote: No, if the branches are identical then by all means keep them aligned. But once they diverge, do not try anymore, at that point merges will just mess up the history with no gain whatsoever. But if the branches didn't actually diverge, but got different history for some

Re: Specifying arch in comps/yumgroups.xml

2011-11-10 Thread Kevin Kofler
Theodore Papadopoulo wrote: I'm playing with comps to install software. I'm mostly in an x86-64 environment, but for compatibility I need some i386 packages... but those seem to be invisible and I find no syntax that make them visible... And there seems to be no error messages either at

Re: F17 heads up: X server git snapshots

2011-11-10 Thread Peter Hutterer
On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 06:20:14PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote: On Wed, 2011-11-09 at 16:14 -0500, Adam Jackson wrote: I'm currently rebuilding the X stack for F17, and we'll be tracking git snapshots of the X server and drivers until xserver 1.12 comes out. I don't know yet how many of

Re: Cannot upload sources to git repository

2011-11-10 Thread Michael Schwendt
On Fri, 11 Nov 2011 02:24:27 +0100, C (Casper) wrote: Hello, I have three approved packages : [1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=749320 [2] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=741129 [3] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=726080 I followed the link :

Re: PolicyKit not working in Rawhide?

2011-11-10 Thread Michael Schwendt
On Thu, 10 Nov 2011 18:22:55 -0800, AW (Adam) wrote: Anyone else noticed this? Anything which needs interactive auth via PK doesn't seem to work: when I run virt-manager it doesn't ask me for the root password and then successfully list out the local VMs, it just immediately displays an error

Re: F17 heads up: X server git snapshots

2011-11-10 Thread Adam Williamson
On Fri, 2011-11-11 at 15:01 +1000, Peter Hutterer wrote: So I put through a new xorg-x11-drv-evdev build which bumped it again to catch the fix from upstream. If you wind up with: xorg-x11-drv-evdev-2.6.99-2.2009git745fca03a.fc17 and your cursor doesn't move, don't panic, just

Re: PolicyKit not working in Rawhide?

2011-11-10 Thread Adam Williamson
On Fri, 2011-11-11 at 08:25 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote: On Thu, 10 Nov 2011 18:22:55 -0800, AW (Adam) wrote: Anyone else noticed this? Anything which needs interactive auth via PK doesn't seem to work: when I run virt-manager it doesn't ask me for the root password and then

[Bug 751886] CVE-2011-4115 perl-Parallel-ForkManager: insecure temporary file usage

2011-11-10 Thread bugzilla
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=751886 --- Comment #3 from Tomas Hoger tho...@redhat.com 2011-11-10 04:17:49 EST --- I gave this some look yesterday, and I can't see

[Bug 744904] perl-JSON-RPC should not depend on mod_perl

2011-11-10 Thread bugzilla
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=744904 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added

[Bug 751886] CVE-2011-4115 perl-Parallel-ForkManager: insecure temporary file usage

2011-11-10 Thread bugzilla
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=751886 --- Comment #4 from Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu 2011-11-10 13:11:51 EST --- I like the idea of making tempdir mandatory.

File Bio-SamTools-1.32.tar.gz uploaded to lookaside cache by verdurin

2011-11-10 Thread verdurin
A file has been added to the lookaside cache for perl-Bio-SamTools: 566f8eb1a84856da3e524b32f3edfd47 Bio-SamTools-1.32.tar.gz -- Fedora Extras Perl SIG http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl perl-devel mailing list perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

[perl-Bio-SamTools] New upstream release 1.32

2011-11-10 Thread verdurin
commit b7913bc0681d0e5795b0182771f68be30e257b7e Author: Adam Huffman bl...@verdurin.com Date: Thu Nov 10 22:11:02 2011 + New upstream release 1.32 .gitignore |1 + perl-Bio-SamTools.spec |5 - sources|2 +- 3 files changed, 6 insertions(+),

[perl-Bio-SamTools/f16] (3 commits) ...New upstream release 1.32

2011-11-10 Thread verdurin
Summary of changes: 7be7100... Update to 1.30 (*) 3a238a0... 1.31 (*) b7913bc... New upstream release 1.32 (*) (*) This commit already existed in another branch; no separate mail sent -- Fedora Extras Perl SIG http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl perl-devel mailing list

[perl-Bio-SamTools/f15] (5 commits) ...New upstream release 1.32

2011-11-10 Thread verdurin
Summary of changes: 60b4473... Update to 1.29 bugfix release (*) 212a71a... Perl mass rebuild (*) 7be7100... Update to 1.30 (*) 3a238a0... 1.31 (*) b7913bc... New upstream release 1.32 (*) (*) This commit already existed in another branch; no separate mail sent -- Fedora Extras Perl

[perl-Bio-SamTools/f14] (5 commits) ...New upstream release 1.32

2011-11-10 Thread verdurin
Summary of changes: 60b4473... Update to 1.29 bugfix release (*) 212a71a... Perl mass rebuild (*) 7be7100... Update to 1.30 (*) 3a238a0... 1.31 (*) b7913bc... New upstream release 1.32 (*) (*) This commit already existed in another branch; no separate mail sent -- Fedora Extras Perl

[perl-Bio-SamTools/el6] (5 commits) ...New upstream release 1.32

2011-11-10 Thread verdurin
Summary of changes: 60b4473... Update to 1.29 bugfix release (*) 212a71a... Perl mass rebuild (*) 7be7100... Update to 1.30 (*) 3a238a0... 1.31 (*) b7913bc... New upstream release 1.32 (*) (*) This commit already existed in another branch; no separate mail sent -- Fedora Extras Perl

[perl-Bio-SamTools/el5] (7 commits) ...New upstream release 1.32

2011-11-10 Thread verdurin
Summary of changes: 4012dfa... New upstream release 1.28 (*) a8d2e71... Add new genomeCoverageBed.pl script (*) 60b4473... Update to 1.29 bugfix release (*) 212a71a... Perl mass rebuild (*) 7be7100... Update to 1.30 (*) 3a238a0... 1.31 (*) b7913bc... New upstream release 1.32 (*)

[Bug 752390] perl-Bio-SamTools-1.32 is available

2011-11-10 Thread bugzilla
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=752390 Adam Huffman bl...@verdurin.com changed: What|Removed |Added

[Bug 752390] perl-Bio-SamTools-1.32 is available

2011-11-10 Thread bugzilla
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=752390 Adam Huffman bl...@verdurin.com changed: What|Removed |Added