Compose started at Wed May 18 08:15:03 UTC 2011
Broken deps for x86_64
--
R-Rsolid-0.9.31-2.fc15.x86_64 requires libhdf5.so.6()(64bit)
acheck-0.5.1-4.fc15.noarch requires perl(Text::Aspell)
On Mon, 2011-05-16 at 14:26 -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote:
Notably, this re-adds the RPC API to glibc's exported interface, so
please test that rebuilding your applications still works, or works
again.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/glibc-2.13.90-12
there is number of headers that
On Tuesday, May 17, 2011 10:43:47 AM Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 09:33:51AM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 9:28 AM, Kevin Fenzi ke...@scrye.com wrote:
Is there some other way to add a noarch package that doesn't build on
some architectures?
On Tuesday, May 17, 2011 08:46:15 PM Kevin Kofler wrote:
Branched Report wrote:
Broken deps for x86_64
Are we going to get these uninstallable packages cleared up from the
Everything tree before sending the release to the mirrors? Otherwise,
they're going to come haunt us at each and every
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=704221
Hans de Goede hdego...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
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=704221
Iain Arnell iarn...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 11:33:35 -0400,
Tom Callaway tcall...@redhat.com wrote:
Lately, I've been trying to resolve as many of these as reasonably
possible. Here's what I know:
sear-0.6.3-14.fc12.x86_64 requires liberis-1.3.so.15()(64bit)
2 for 2 now:
libtool: link: g++ -fPIC -DPIC -shared -nostdlib
/usr/lib/gcc/i686-redhat-linux/4.6.0/../../../crti.o
/usr/lib/gcc/i686-redhat-linux/4.6.0/crtbeginS.o .libs/assocdata.o
.libs/basic_fun_cl.o .libs/basic_fun.o .libs/basic_fun_jmg.o .libs/basic_op.o
.libs/basic_pro.o
On 05/18/2011 03:47 PM, Orion Poplawski wrote:
2 for 2 now:
libtool: link: g++ -fPIC -DPIC -shared -nostdlib
/usr/lib/gcc/i686-redhat-linux/4.6.0/../../../crti.o
/usr/lib/gcc/i686-redhat-linux/4.6.0/crtbeginS.o .libs/assocdata.o
.libs/basic_fun_cl.o .libs/basic_fun.o
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=704221
--- Comment #3 from Hans de Goede hdego...@redhat.com 2011-05-18 10:52:32 EDT
---
(In reply to comment #2)
Upstream seems to
On 05/18/2011 10:20 AM, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
While everyone that worked on the F15 release deserves thanks and congrats,
I'd like to give a special thanks to the systemd and gnome3 developers because
of the large amount of work needed to implement those features. By working
hard to get these
On 05/18/2011 08:48 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
On 05/18/2011 03:47 PM, Orion Poplawski wrote:
collect2: ld terminated with signal 6 [Aborted]
Any ideas what might cause this?
A bug in collect2 or the OOM killer.
Have a look at the output of dmesg.
Andrew.
That was my thought too I guess.
Jiri Skala (jsk...@redhat.com) said:
On Mon, 2011-05-16 at 14:26 -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote:
Notably, this re-adds the RPC API to glibc's exported interface, so
please test that rebuilding your applications still works, or works
again.
Hey, all. The topic of whether and which security issues should block
releases has come up several times before. While we haven't actually had
many really serious security issues to worry about since the
introduction of the current release criteria system, I think it's
certainly something we
On Wed, 2011-05-18 at 08:57 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
# There must be no known remote code execution vulnerability which could
be exploited during installation or during use of a live image shipped
with the release
Points to consider:
One more 'point to consider' that I forgot: for
On 05/18/2011 03:57 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
Feedback please! Thanks:)
Given that we ship selinux on by default should this proposal only be
applicable to exploits/vulnerability that selinux cant catch and prevent
which leaves us with insert type of exploits here )?
Don't we need
On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 08:57:17 -0700,
Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote:
# There must be no known remote code execution vulnerability which could
be exploited during installation or during use of a live image shipped
with the release
Points to consider:
I think there may be
On 05/18/2011 09:58 PM, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
On 05/18/2011 03:57 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
Feedback please! Thanks:)
Given that we ship selinux on by default should this proposal only be
applicable to exploits/vulnerability that selinux cant catch and prevent
which leaves us with
On Wed, 2011-05-18 at 16:28 +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
On 05/18/2011 03:57 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
Feedback please! Thanks:)
Given that we ship selinux on by default should this proposal only be
applicable to exploits/vulnerability that selinux cant catch and prevent
which
On 5/18/11 11:57 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
# There must be no known remote code execution vulnerability which could
be exploited during installation or during use of a live image shipped
with the release
Seems reasonable at first glance.
One anecdotal experience: FC5 (wow) shipped with an X
On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 10:27:07PM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
On 05/18/2011 09:58 PM, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
On 05/18/2011 03:57 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
Feedback please! Thanks:)
Given that we ship selinux on by default should this proposal only be
applicable to
Adam Williamson wrote:
Hey, all. The topic of whether and which security issues should block
releases has come up several times before.
Indeed it has. The decision was always that it's not a good idea. I don't
see how the situation has changed to warrant beating that dead horse again.
#
On 05/18/2011 05:18 PM, Adam Miller wrote:
On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 10:27:07PM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
On 05/18/2011 09:58 PM, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
On 05/18/2011 03:57 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
Feedback please! Thanks:)
Given that we ship selinux on by default should this
On 5/18/11 1:22 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Adam Williamson wrote:
# There must be no known remote code execution vulnerability which could
be exploited during installation or during use of a live image shipped
with the release
This is just completely and utterly moot considering that there are
On Wed, 2011-05-18 at 13:37 -0400, Adam Jackson wrote:
On 5/18/11 1:22 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Adam Williamson wrote:
# There must be no known remote code execution vulnerability which could
be exploited during installation or during use of a live image shipped
with the release
This
Here are the latest changes to the Fedora Packaging Guidelines:
---
A section has been added to the SysVInitScript guidelines covering the
optional situation where a package that uses systemd unit files as the
default also includes sysv initscripts in a subpackage:
On Mon, 2011-05-16 at 18:59 +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Mon, 16.05.11 14:32, Michal Hlavinka (mhlav...@redhat.com) wrote:
when ups recieves command for shutdown, it does not shutdown power
immediately, but after 30 seconds. Given that this command should be
executed
after
On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 10:44:16AM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
Well, I think his point is that it's almost certain that some 'unknown'
exposures will become 'known' during the life cycle of a release, at
which point the live images we release three months previously are
vulnerable to a known
On 5/18/11 1:44 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Wed, 2011-05-18 at 13:37 -0400, Adam Jackson wrote:
On 5/18/11 1:22 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Adam Williamson wrote:
# There must be no known remote code execution vulnerability which could
be exploited during installation or during use of a live
On Wed, 2011-05-18 at 09:20 -0500, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
While everyone that worked on the F15 release deserves thanks and
congrats,
I'd like to give a special thanks to the systemd and gnome3 developers
because
of the large amount of work needed to implement those features. By
working
===
#fedora-meeting: FESCO (2011-05-18)
===
Meeting started by nirik at 17:30:01 UTC. The full logs are available at
http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2011-05-18/fesco.2011-05-18-17.30.log.html
Meeting summary
On Wed, 2011-05-18 at 19:22 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Adam Williamson wrote:
Hey, all. The topic of whether and which security issues should block
releases has come up several times before.
Indeed it has. The decision was always that it's not a good idea. I don't
see how the situation
On Wed, 2011-05-18 at 08:57 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
Hey, all. The topic of whether and which security issues should block
releases has come up several times before. While we haven't actually had
many really serious security issues to worry about since the
introduction of the current
On Wed, 2011-05-18 at 10:44 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Wed, 2011-05-18 at 13:37 -0400, Adam Jackson wrote:
On 5/18/11 1:22 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Adam Williamson wrote:
# There must be no known remote code execution vulnerability which could
be exploited during installation or
On Wed, 2011-05-18 at 14:40 -0400, Simo Sorce wrote:
Is it unthinkable to respin the images with those fixes ?
Usually the patches are quite simple to backport, and we are talking
about a limited set of bugs (remote root exploit on install) after all.
Unthinkable, no, but there are various
On Wed, 2011-05-18 at 14:02 -0400, Adam Jackson wrote:
On 5/18/11 1:44 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Wed, 2011-05-18 at 13:37 -0400, Adam Jackson wrote:
On 5/18/11 1:22 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Adam Williamson wrote:
# There must be no known remote code execution vulnerability which could
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=701252
--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org
2011-05-18 15:58:36 EDT ---
perl-Directory-Queue-1.1-1.el5
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=701252
Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
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=701252
--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org
2011-05-18 15:59:04 EDT ---
perl-Directory-Queue-1.1-1.el4
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=701252
--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2011-05-18
15:57:32 EDT ---
perl-Directory-Queue-1.1-1.el6
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=701252
Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
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=701252
Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Adam Jackson wrote:
The difference between a known and an unknown security bug is that, if
_you_ know about it, it's virtually certain that someone malicious
already does too.
We can't avoid unknown risk exposure. You're arguing for ignoring known
risk exposure entirely. Seems a touch
Few questions here:
What does this scope include? Is it merely the LiveCD for GNOME and KDE?
Does it also include the DVD install selections for both of these packages?
(They are different)
What about clearly vulnerable areas, like Web Sever that is push-button
selectable on install?
Do we
Adam Jackson wrote:
It's a rationally argued position, but argued from an initial state that
does not reflect reality.
I mean, the conclusion from that line of reasoning is that all releases
are futile: any sufficiently severe bug unknown at release time could be
discovered later, and could
On Wed, 2011-05-18 at 15:43 -0500, dr johnson wrote:
Few questions here:
What does this scope include? Is it merely the LiveCD for GNOME and
KDE? Does it also include the DVD install selections for both of
these packages? (They are different)
Well, that's part of the discussion I
On 5/18/11 4:49 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
The thing is, if we block the release for each and every known security
issue, considering the time passing between notification and public
availability of a fix, we will never be able to release anything. We have to
draw the line somewhere, and the best
Tomas Mraz wrote:
Also note that targeting the heaps of poor users that are eager to try
the newly shipped Fedora release would be probably much more easy and
efficient than targeting one user installing the Fedora here or there a
few months later.
Huh? The heaps of users do not install
On Mon, 16.05.11 14:30, Simo Sorce (sso...@redhat.com) wrote:
On Mon, 2011-05-16 at 18:59 +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Mon, 16.05.11 14:32, Michal Hlavinka (mhlav...@redhat.com) wrote:
when ups recieves command for shutdown, it does not shutdown power
immediately, but after
Adam Jackson wrote:
On 5/18/11 4:49 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
The thing is, if we block the release for each and every known security
issue, considering the time passing between notification and public
availability of a fix, we will never be able to release anything. We have
to draw the line
On 05/18/2011 04:04 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
Host requests power down from UPS in 30s. Host then continues shut
down. If the host now ends up taking more time then expected for
shutting down it might still be busy at the time of the power going
away. It's a race between UPS powering off
Hey, all. So, although the Fedora 15 final release has been signed off
on, we gave ourselves a bit of wiggle room. The current Sugar
implementation is known to have some significant issues, the major one
of which is that networking is badly broken. We are aiming to try and
fix these and do the
On Wed, 2011-05-18 at 23:04 +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Mon, 16.05.11 14:30, Simo Sorce (sso...@redhat.com) wrote:
On Mon, 2011-05-16 at 18:59 +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Mon, 16.05.11 14:32, Michal Hlavinka (mhlav...@redhat.com) wrote:
when ups recieves command
On Wed, 2011-05-18 at 16:48 -0500, Robert Nichols wrote:
On 05/18/2011 04:04 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
Host requests power down from UPS in 30s. Host then continues shut
down. If the host now ends up taking more time then expected for
shutting down it might still be busy at the time of
Compose started at Wed May 18 13:15:47 UTC 2011
Broken deps for x86_64
--
db4o-7.4-2.fc13.x86_64 requires mono(Mono.GetOptions) = 0:2.0.0.0
dh-make-0.55-3.fc15.noarch requires debhelper
On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 07:42:17PM -0400, Simo Sorce wrote:
I am pretty sure we don't want to run Java programs at late boot, as
root. This would be really bad.
You know, it's not like there is a choice for many models ...
That's really not a given. For anything short of us having to send
On 05/18/2011 09:06 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 07:42:17PM -0400, Simo Sorce wrote:
You know, it's not like there is a choice for many models ...
That's really not a given. For anything short of us having to send http
requests, there's no fundamental reason why this
On 05/18/2011 06:42 PM, Simo Sorce wrote:
On Wed, 2011-05-18 at 16:48 -0500, Robert Nichols wrote:
On 05/18/2011 04:04 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
Host requests power down from UPS in 30s. Host then continues shut
down. If the host now ends up taking more time then expected for
shutting
On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 09:27:23PM -0400, Genes MailLists wrote:
On 05/18/2011 09:06 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 07:42:17PM -0400, Simo Sorce wrote:
You know, it's not like there is a choice for many models ...
That's really not a given. For anything short of us
On Thu, 2011-05-19 at 02:06 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 07:42:17PM -0400, Simo Sorce wrote:
I am pretty sure we don't want to run Java programs at late boot, as
root. This would be really bad.
You know, it's not like there is a choice for many models ...
On Thu, 2011-05-19 at 10:00 +0800, Eugene Teo wrote:
I say, local privilege escalations with publicly available exploits, and
remotely triggerable vulnerabilities. If such an issue is known before
Final, we should attempt to address it before releasing.
Note, a release criterion would have a
On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 10:42:02PM -0400, seth vidal wrote:
We are however talking about a lot of different upses and while it is
not specifically fedora's problem we do need to have this handled
before rhel7, for example, is run on serious systems.
If it's a functional requirement, it'll get
Summary of changes:
9b50363... 0.0401 bump (*)
(*) 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-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
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=701119
--- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2011-05-18
05:57:50 EDT ---
perl-Ouch-0.0401-1.fc15 has been
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=701119
--- Comment #3 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2011-05-18
05:57:24 EDT ---
perl-Ouch-0.0401-1.fc14 has been
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=701119
Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
Summary: perl-App-cpanminus-1.4007 is available
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=705744
Summary: perl-App-cpanminus-1.4007 is available
Product:
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=705744
Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
A file has been added to the lookaside cache for perl-App-cpanminus:
56fc1d8fce7da489e64c20597392ebc7 App-cpanminus-1.4007.tar.gz
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
perl-devel mailing list
perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
commit a13bf0e0928d0e88871d0bfeb3f04f804a934c50
Author: Petr Písař ppi...@redhat.com
Date: Wed May 18 13:03:08 2011 +0200
1.4007 bump
LWP is optional since this package bundles HTTP::Tiny. Upstream
recognized LWP being heavy. Follow upstream decision in RPM package
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=705744
Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
A file has been added to the lookaside cache for perl-CGI-PSGI:
58a39711add2b48229710688c5f81cfd CGI-PSGI-0.15.tar.gz
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
perl-devel mailing list
perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
commit 7a3e83aa469f84f5a43158f462b9dfa572294bff
Author: Emmanuel Seyman emmanuel.sey...@club-internet.fr
Date: Wed May 18 20:40:16 2011 +0200
Update to 0.15
.gitignore |1 +
perl-CGI-PSGI.spec | 15 ++-
sources|2 +-
3 files changed, 8
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=701119
Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
commit e76050d7e4074a8eb59282bf92b8c01a1f2317a7
Author: Emmanuel Seyman emmanuel.sey...@club-internet.fr
Date: Thu May 19 01:08:16 2011 +0200
Initial import (#701183).
.gitignore |1 +
perl-CGI-Application-Plugin-RateLimit.spec | 59
A file has been added to the lookaside cache for perl-DBIx-Class-Cursor-Cached:
11f9b448244bace1fd79658d7909d9be DBIx-Class-Cursor-Cached-1.001001.tar.gz
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
perl-devel mailing list
perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
commit 200054dc8ac9f8d1967ad19a9d215a1b389bf9dd
Author: Iain Arnell iarn...@gmail.com
Date: Thu May 19 04:55:29 2011 +0200
initial import (rhbz#684511)
.gitignore |1 +
perl-DBIx-Class-Cursor-Cached.spec | 67
sources
A file has been added to the lookaside cache for perl-Parallel-Iterator:
879051d329ea79f59eb4b03bb0bf7c87 Parallel-Iterator-1.00.tar.gz
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
perl-devel mailing list
perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
commit ef87bdab1737e5e49add83ebad3de39b2d17ab0c
Author: Iain Arnell iarn...@gmail.com
Date: Thu May 19 04:57:29 2011 +0200
initial import (rhbz#704705)
.gitignore |1 +
perl-Parallel-Iterator.spec | 60 +++
sources
Summary of changes:
ef87bda... initial import (rhbz#704705) (*)
(*) 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-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Summary of changes:
ef87bda... initial import (rhbz#704705) (*)
(*) 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-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Summary of changes:
ef87bda... initial import (rhbz#704705) (*)
(*) 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-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
Summary: perl-HTTP-Server-Simple-PSGI: the F13 and F14 RPMS fail to require
perl(HTTP::Server::Simple::CGI)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=705966
Summary:
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=705966
--- Comment #1 from Jose Pedro Oliveira j...@di.uminho.pt 2011-05-18 23:15:00
EDT ---
The module HTTP::Server::Simple::PSGI
A file has been added to the lookaside cache for perl-Devel-Cover:
fd26cd6df23bc3f2c38324884c976718 Devel-Cover-0.78.tar.gz
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
perl-devel mailing list
perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Summary of changes:
200054d... initial import (rhbz#684511) (*)
(*) 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-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
commit a1cbab94f8de06ffd48a35a96496da7ba7ce1812
Author: Iain Arnell iarn...@gmail.com
Date: Thu May 19 05:20:59 2011 +0200
update to 0.78
.gitignore|1 +
perl-Devel-Cover.spec | 23 +--
sources |2 +-
3 files changed, 15
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=703430
--- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2011-05-19
00:58:11 EDT ---
perlbrew-0.20-1.fc15 has been
commit 12acbda4c8099106ee786c6f2f40fb0ad737c316
Author: Ralf Corsépius corse...@fedoraproject.org
Date: Thu May 19 07:40:16 2011 +0200
R: perl(HTTP::Server::Simple::CGI) (BZ #705966).
perl-HTTP-Server-Simple-PSGI.spec |6 +-
1 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
---
Summary of changes:
12acbda... R: perl(HTTP::Server::Simple::CGI) (BZ #705966). (*)
(*) 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-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
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=703430
Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
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=705966
--- Comment #2 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2011-05-19
01:55:54 EDT ---
92 matches
Mail list logo
