On 09/03/2011 09:47 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
>> On Sat, Sep 3, 2011 at 07:46, Reindl Harald
>> wrote:
..
> We need to get a provenpackager to just poke through all the packages and
> fix them instead of waiting for the maintainers.
In some cases that would work ( as in
I've released ownership of the aforementioned package, as I've not used
it in any meaningful way in some time and don't have the time to
maintain it further.
Upstream development seems to have picked up of late (was dormant for a
long time) so potential future maintainers will have something
inte
On 09/06/2011 02:55 AM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> Reindl Harald (h.rei...@thelounge.net) said:
>> the alpha was release and
>> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/SysVtoSystemd
>> is at 0% - why will F16 released WITHOUT making the system clean which
>> should have been done for F15
> Perhaps th
Reindl Harald (h.rei...@thelounge.net) said:
> the alpha was release and http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/SysVtoSystemd
> is at 0% - why will F16 released WITHOUT making the system clean which
> should have been done for F15
Perhaps the feature owner should update it, as per the policy.
>
The L10N/I18N Test Week is now over and it's time to look at whole
picture.
I'm glad to see that translators did a wonderful job testing the UI and
catching a lot of bugs. Fortunately, Anaconda is in pretty good shape
regarding i18n support as well as the overall desktop applications. On
the downs
On Mon, 5 Sep 2011 21:38:02 +0200, TM (Till) wrote:
> Hi,
>
> is it ok to package a pearl script to convert flac files to ogg or mp3
> files? The conversion is done by calling the respective command line
> tools, i.e. no mp3 encoding logic is included in the script:
> http://smxi.org/acxi
>
> Ki
Hi,
is it ok to package a pearl script to convert flac files to ogg or mp3
files? The conversion is done by calling the respective command line
tools, i.e. no mp3 encoding logic is included in the script:
http://smxi.org/acxi
Kind regards
Till
P.S.: I tried to send this message to legal@fpo, but
Hi,
On 09/03/2011 12:22 PM, Bastien Nocera wrote:
> On Sat, 2011-09-03 at 10:10 +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
>
>> With that said, you're the Fedora bluetooth maintainer, so you are the
>> boss. The easiest way to make this opt-in, and I think also a good one,
>> is to just move the udev-rules and
Compose started at Mon Sep 5 13:15:30 UTC 2011
Broken deps for x86_64
--
389-ds-base-1.2.9.0-1.fc16.2.x86_64 requires
libnetsnmpagent.so.25()(64bit)
389-ds-base-1.2.9.0-1.fc16.2.x86_64 requires
libnetsnmpmibs.so.25()(64bit)
Compose started at Mon Sep 5 08:15:53 UTC 2011
Broken deps for x86_64
--
FlightGear-2.0.0-6.fc16.x86_64 requires libosgViewer.so.74()(64bit)
FlightGear-2.0.0-6.fc16.x86_64 requires libosgUtil.so.74()(64bit)
FlightGear
List,
Please note the dvtm license has changed in 0.7 from MIT/LGPLv2 to MIT/ISC.
-- Petr
pgpH3yIUjbGoJ.pgp
Description: PGP signature
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
2011/9/4 Christian Krause :
> Hi David,
>
> On 08/31/2011 09:37 AM, Woodhouse, David wrote:
>> On Wed, 2011-08-31 at 02:42 +0200, Christian Krause wrote:
>
>>> I have looked at the list of open bugs for vpnc and it looks like that
>>> there are a couple of packaging issues, some problems with the
>
On Sat, 2011-09-03 at 23:17 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Nils Philippsen wrote:
> > Legal question: is it better to put this in its own subpackage to be
> > able to specify this individual license, or would GIMP better have
> > "GPLv3+ and LGPLv3+ and (GPLv2 or GPLv3)" as its license?
>
> Not an a
Hi!
The gsoap package has been updated to version 2.8.3 in rawhide and F16.
Dependent packages should be rebuilt. A buildroot override is currently
in effect in F16.
According to repoquery the following packages have requires or
build-requires on gsoap(-devel):
* CGSI-gSOAP
* lcgdm
* voms
*
14 matches
Mail list logo
