On Monday, June 4, 2018, 4:35:34 AM, Jan Kurik wrote:
> = Proposed System Wide Change: i686 Is For x86-64 =
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/i686_Is_For_x86-64
> Owner(s):
> * Florian Weimer
> Fedora builds its i686 packages for use on x86-64 systems as multi-lib RPMs.
> == Detailed
On Tuesday, January 6, 2015, 11:25:19 AM, Josh Boyer wrote:
On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 11:17 AM, Kevin Fenzi ke...@scrye.com wrote:
As of 6th of January 2014, Fedora 19 has reached its end of life for
updates and support.
Yay!
Does this mean Schrödinger's cat is actually dead?
josh
Wulf's
. On Tuesday, November 4, 2014, 10:01:02 AM, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
The Fedora 21 beta release is here, and - as usual - is packed
with amazing improvements to Fedora, as well as fantastic free
and open source software, gently harvested for your enjoyment. No
bits were harmed in the making of
On Tuesday, November 4, 2014, 6:01:35 PM, Robert Mayz wrote:
2014-11-04 23:55 GMT+01:00 Al Dunsmuir al.dunsm...@sympatico.ca:
On Tuesday, November 4, 2014, 10:01:02 AM, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
The Fedora 21 beta release is here, and - as usual - is packed
with amazing improvements to Fedora
Greetings!
I've been a Fedora user since Fedora Core 3, but now I'm starting the
move to the next level - becoming a Fedora packager.
I'm interested in vintage hardware, especially older ATI/Radeon video,
and PPC (Macs IBM).
I'm hoping to contribute to Fedora development in a couple of areas:
On Saturday, July 19, 2014, 8:20:30 PM, Eric Smith wrote:
On Sat, Jul 19, 2014 at 7:26 AM, Richard Shaw hobbes1...@gmail.com wrote:
How about not rebuilding the chroot every time... It's not like you have to
worry about leftover BR's from building another package.
That could lead to packages
On Wednesday, July 9, 2014, 1:24:12 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 09.07.2014 19:18, schrieb Chris Adams:
Once upon a time, Lennart Poettering mzerq...@0pointer.de said:
Please, no! As soon as you use disparate systems in a network
environment, having differing versions of UID_MIN (where
, Al Dunsmuir wrote:
On Monday, June 2, 2014, 2:53:33 PM, Till Mass wrote:
On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 11:01:53AM +0200, Dan Horák wrote:
On Sun, 1 Jun 2014 11:24:09 +0200
Till Maas opensou...@till.name wrote:
yaboot dwmw2, dwmw2, fkocina
On Tuesday, June 3, 2014, 2:37:49 AM, Dan Horák wrote:
On Mon, 2 Jun 2014 23:54:10 +0200
Till Maas opensou...@till.name wrote:
On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 04:36:28PM -0400, Al Dunsmuir wrote:
Please do not start deleting ppc32-only packages.
A few of us would like to resurrect ppc32
On Monday, June 2, 2014, 2:53:33 PM, Till Mass wrote:
On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 11:01:53AM +0200, Dan Horák wrote:
On Sun, 1 Jun 2014 11:24:09 +0200
Till Maas opensou...@till.name wrote:
yaboot dwmw2, dwmw2, fkocina,
this is a secondary arch only package since
On Monday, June 2, 2014, 10:05:22 AM, Adam Jackson wrote:
On Sat, 2014-05-31 at 10:33 -0400, Al Dunsmuir wrote:
Is the mga450 supported? Aside from formal graphics test days, I can
run whatever tests required on x86 (both 32-bit and 64-bit).
Define supported. I believe for PowerPC in RHEL
On Monday, June 2, 2014, 5:15:18 PM, Adam Jackson wrote:
On Mon, 2014-06-02 at 16:52 -0400, Al Dunsmuir wrote:
On Monday, June 2, 2014, 10:05:22 AM, Adam Jackson wrote:
On Sat, 2014-05-31 at 10:33 -0400, Al Dunsmuir wrote:
Is the mga450 supported? Aside from formal graphics test days, I
On Monday, June 2, 2014, 5:54:10 PM, Till Mass wrote:
On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 04:36:28PM -0400, Al Dunsmuir wrote:
Please do not start deleting ppc32-only packages.
A few of us would like to resurrect ppc32, likely initially as a
Fedora Remix. Deleting ppc32-only packages just
On Friday, May 30, 2014, 12:22:18 PM, Adam Jackson wrote:
On Thu, 2014-05-29 at 18:24 +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 03:43:49PM +0200, Till Maas wrote:
Isn't this driver therefore required by this emulated card? Or does
another driver do the job?
No and yes,
On Thursday, May 15, 2014, 8:28:33 PM, I wrote:
Has anyone else noticed problems with the Fedora mailing lists today?
As of last night, I am not getting copied on my posts, but can see
them at
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/ppc/2014-May/date.html
I tried checking my mail
Has anyone else noticed problems with the Fedora mailing lists today?
As of last night, I am not getting copied on my posts, but can see
them at https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/ppc/2014-May/date.html
I tried checking my mail options, at
On Thursday, May 15, 2014, 12:42:25 AM, Orion Poplawski wrote:
More fallout from pkgdb2?
I just send an email to this list about weird problems I have been
experiencing with the ppc mailing list. When I tried to log on to
check my options, I got a 502 proxy error about a DNS lookup
On Tuesday 2014-04-29 at 14:15 +0200, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
= Proposed System Wide Change: Default Local DNS Resolver =
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Default_Local_DNS_Resolver
Change owner(s): P J P p...@fedoraproject.org, Pavel Šimerda
pav...@pavlix.net, Tomas Hozza
On Friday, April 4, 2014, 1:42:49 PM, Matthew Milleru wrote:
On Fri, Apr 04, 2014 at 11:32:57AM -0600, Michal Jaegermann wrote:
As far as I am concerned they are very useful. In more detail I am
looking mostly at Broken deps and Summaries, with only an occasional
peek at a changelog
On Wednesday, April 2, 2014, 4:27:55 PM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
** possibly adjust spec files to require or build-require lbzip2 instead of
bzip2.
Is this necessary? Wouldn't it be better to have lbzip2 Provide bzip2
or something so that updating all those packages is not
Hello Al,
On Wednesday, April 2, 2014, 5:14:53 PM, Al Dunsmuir wrote:
On Wednesday, April 2, 2014, 4:27:55 PM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
** possibly adjust spec files to require or build-require lbzip2 instead of
bzip2.
Is this necessary? Wouldn't it be better to have lbzip2 Provide
On Wednesday, April 2, 2014, 2:03:38 PM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
Jaroslav Reznik (jrez...@redhat.com) said:
= Proposed System Wide Change: lbzip2 as default bzip2 implementation =
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/lbzip2
Change owner(s): Mikolaj Izdebski mizde...@redhat.com
This
On Wednesday, November 27, 2013, 2:30:23 PM, Ralph Bean wrote:
On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 07:46:28PM +0100, Till Maas wrote:
On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 12:35:13PM -0600, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 19:21:53 +0100,
Till Maas opensou...@till.name wrote:
What are your
On Thursday, October 24, 2013, 4:41:09 PM, Adam Jackson wrote:
On Tue, 2013-08-27 at 10:46 -0400, Adam Jackson wrote:
For F21, I plan to orphan the following X video drivers:
...
xorg-x11-drv-mach64
xorg-x11-drv-r128
...
These have now been orphaned.
I would like to volunteer to pick up
On Monday, October 28,2013, 6:00:07 AM, the owner-change drone spake:
Change in ownership over the last 168 hours
===
23 packages were orphaned
-
. . .
xorg-x11-drv-r128 [devel] was orphaned by jwboyer
Xorg X11 r128 video
On Monday, October 28, 2013, 10:07:05 PM, I began...
I left IBM in 2002. Since then, I have joined RBC, and spend my days
developing a mainframe file/data server (written in C and assembler -
about 250 KLOC) and a few bits and pieces on AIX.
I'm still a quite active coder, just not so much
On Saturday, July 14, 2012, 7:25:15 PM, Eric Smith wrote:
Kevin Fenzi wrote:
See:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#Binary_Firmware
Ralf Ertzinger wrote:
Question about that: The first requirement is that the file is
non-executable. Does that mean that Fedora
On Tuesday, April 17, 2012, 4:15:53 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
On Apr 17, 2012, at 1:49 PM, Andreas Tunek wrote:
I do not see anything in the f17 feature page describing any graphical
configuration tool. But I also agree that gui configuratio is needed,
otherwise it will probably be really
On Tuesday, April 10, 2012, 11:27:59 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Horst H. von Brand wrote:
That is just irresponsible. BTW, there are too few rawhide consumers as
things stand; this would make rawhide be russian roulette, but with 5
bullets instead of 1.
Rawhide IS already Russian roulette. ;-)
On Tuesday, March 20, 2012, 7:21:25 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 03/20/2012 05:46 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 05:37:10PM +0100, drago01 wrote:
On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 5:34 PM, Brendan Conoboyb...@redhat.com wrote:
On 03/20/2012 09:21 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
That
On Friday, March 2, 2012, 12:23:51 PM, Jóhann wrote:
On 03/02/2012 05:10 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Again, what access do you need and who have you asked for it?
It's pretty obvious that this is a proposal I made today thus I have
asked no one for it nor can I since infrastructure has made it
On Friday, March 2, 2012, 4:21:13 PM, Jóhann wrote:
Some people seem to be confusing this like this would instantly take
effect which is not the case here.
We are just talking about automating the NonResponsiveMaintainers
policy as is so instead of an reporter to manually perform these steps
On Wednesday, February 15, 2012, 6:12:44 PM, Reindl wrote:
this will not work since if a systemd-unit is present
systemd no longer is interested in anything from
/etc/init.d/
so there is no solution except patch systemd if iptables.service is
called which will not happen because it would be
On Wednesday, February 15, 2012, 7:15:13 PM, Reindl wrote:
Am 16.02.2012 00:48, schrieb Al Dunsmuir:
On Wednesday, February 15, 2012, 6:12:44 PM, Reindl wrote:
this will not work since if a systemd-unit is present
systemd no longer is interested in anything from
/etc/init.d/
so
On Tuesday, October 25, 2011, 6:32:26 PM, Michael wrote:
Luke Macken wrote:
In case you hadn't noticed, response to this has so far been pretty
negative. It seems people liked being able to tell from the URL what the
update actually*was*. I must admit I do to. I've resorted to creating
On Monday, August 29, 2011, 7:54:10 AM, Karel Zak wrote:
I'd like to remove:
ddate - converts Gregorian dates to Discordian dates
command from rawhide (F17). IMHO this crazy command is used by very
very small minority of Fedora users.
Comments?
Why does it matter to you? Why
On Friday, August 26, 2011, 3:35:52 PM, Andrew McNabb wrote:
On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 04:29:55PM +0200, Karel Zak wrote:
Windows and GPT FAQ:
Q. Can Windows 7, Windows Vista, and Windows Server 2008 read, write,
and boot from GPT disks?
A. Yes, all versions can use GPT partitioned
Hello Nathaniel,
On Tuesday, April 12, 2011, 2:01:26 PM, Nathaniel McCallum wrote:
On Tue, 2011-04-12 at 13:57 -0400, Casey Dahlin wrote:
On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 01:48:19PM -0400, Nathaniel McCallum wrote:
With this approach, you have lost a critical feature: the ability for
you to
On Tuesday, April 12, 2011, 3:04:36 PM, I wrote:
For the Intel arches, it may make sense to have all kinds of X drivers
available by default. For the secondary arches, the user requirements
and physical environment.
Brain fart - I meant to say and physical environment differ.
Al
--
devel
On Thursday, November 18, 2010, 2:06:38 PM, Peter Jones wrote:
On 11/17/2010 10:59 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 12:42:56AM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Because it's NOT a bug in glibc, because what glibc does is CORRECT,
because
it actually POINTS OUT bugs in
Hello Kevin,
On Wednesday, October 13, 2010, 5:30:52 PM, you wrote:
Well, normally it's the s390 arch team's job to fix the build on s390, and
they should have commit access to all packages, even Firefox. If that's not
the case, talk to the infrastructure team to get the required access.
But
On Wednesday, September 29, 2010, 4:15:28 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Today it's this package. Tomorrow it'll be another one. Sure we can solve
this particular problem (but it's taking WEEKS!), but why would that be the
only one?
See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bmxyj6iInMc
Now that the
On Wednesday, September 22, 2010, 8:06:12 AM, drag01 wrote:
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 11:24 AM, Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com
wrote:
On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 09:58:53PM -0400, Arthur Pemberton wrote:
2010/9/20 Michał Piotrowski mkkp...@gmail.com:
2010/9/21 Toshio Kuratomi
On Wednesday, September 22, 2010, 6:19:28 PM, Jesse wrote:
On 09/22/2010 04:07 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Wed, 2010-09-22 at 10:24 +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
This is reasonably easy to fix: we should do some testing and withhold
packages from Rawhide if they don't pass some basic
On Tuesday, September 21, 2010, 2:54:31 AM, Martin Stransky wrote:
On 09/21/2010 01:45 AM, Bojan Smojver wrote:
On Sun, 2010-09-12 at 17:50 +1000, Bojan Smojver wrote:
Isn't that a security related
update?
Ping...
I'm working on it, recently it's delayed in rel-eng:
On Tuesday, September 7, 2010, 10:42:54 AM, Richard wrote:
On 7 September 2010 15:23, James Antill ja...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
This isn't repodata, it's a separate data package. You /could/ push
the icons.tar.gz and desktop sqlite database as repodata, although
it's not going to change for
On Wednesday, September 1, 2010, 6:41:34 AM, David Howells wrote:
Would it be worth our while putting into Fedora basic gcc and binutils rpms
for cross compilers for all the Linux arches? I keep finding the need to
compile kernels for arches other than the x86_64 boxes I normally use, and I
On Wednesday, September 1, 2010, 9:35:16 AM, I wrote:
On July 7th, 2009, Mark Salter made a post crossbuilding rpms with
koji on the fedora-buildsys-list.
http://www.mail-archive.com/fedora-buildsys-l...@redhat.com/msg02148.html
And for folks who prefer the official archive,
On Tuesday, August 31, 2010, 4:59:27 PM, Matt wrote:
On Tue, 2010-08-31 at 08:27 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
It doesn't seem to be an unavoidable requirement, it says:
If you proposed Start/Home Page is not similar to the existing Firefox
Start Page, please be prepared to provide a
On Thursday, August 26, 2010, 3:17:52 PM, Jeff wrote:
On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 10:29 AM, Jon Masters jonat...@jonmasters.org wrote:
Great. It works fine on a laptop, in general. But on a
desktop/server/workstation that is connected for weeks at a time (like
mine), I don't want to have to do
Hello Kevin,
On Thursday, August 12, 2010, 8:04:12 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
The F-(x) package will have higher EVR than the F-(x+1) one. This
will break the upgrade path. Is there any measures to prevent this?
No. In fact FESCo specifically refused to consider this as an
On Friday, August 13, 2010, 11:52:33 AM, Kevin wrote:
Mike McGrath wrote:
:( I'm saddened you think so little of us Kevin. I'd have thought we
could do both.
And you think Santa Claus exists, too? ;-)
Kevin Kofler
http://www.snopes.com/holidays/christmas/photos/badsanta.asp
--
On Friday, August 13, 2010, 1:05:16 PM, Kevin wrote:
Jon Ciesla wrote:
My understanding of the SIG concept was that they were groups of people
who were self-organizing around a particular theme to further that theme
in Fedora, i.e. Games, Live Upgrade, KDE, etc.
Right, but that makes them
On Friday, August 13, 2010, 1:11:49 PM, Kevin wrote:
Jesse Keating wrote:
This is where Kevin blames the scenario on not having the same sqlite on
all of the Fedora releases, which is another evil plot hatched by the
devils of FESCo
Right. If F12 has a buggy SQLite, then that SQLite
On Friday, August 13, 2010, 1:26:34 PM, Jon wrote:
Hey, no fair stating the same point as I did, at the same time, but
better, and without ranting. That's cheating!
:)
-J
Sorry... Must be feeling mellow - it's Friday afternoon, and I'm
taking next week off.
I'll make sure I flick
Hello Chen,
Thursday, July 8, 2010, 12:05:43 PM, Chen Lei wrote:
2010/7/8 Jakub Jelinek ja...@redhat.com:
Generally, much better speedup can be achieved by using PGO
(-fprofile-generate, run on some testsuite, -fprofile-use).
GCC itself is built that way for several years, but it would be
Hello Chen,
Thursday, July 8, 2010, 12:05:43 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
2010/7/8 Jakub Jelinek ja...@redhat.com:
Generally, much better speedup can be achieved by using PGO
(-fprofile-generate, run on some testsuite, -fprofile-use).
GCC itself is built that way for several years, but it would
Friday, March 12, 2010, 10:52:35 AM, spot you wrote:
On 03/12/2010 10:47 AM, Eric Sandeen wrote:
I really think this is not the approach, unless Fedora is just for rich
people
in (theoretically) rich countries. I doubt that's what we want.
Or we could just make Fedora print money. ;)
Hello Simo,
Friday, March 12, 2010, 3:42:41 PM, you wrote:
On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 21:21:41 +0100
Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at wrote:
The problem with all the proposals centered on the idea of N-1 as
conservative, N as less conservative, including yours above and
jreznik's, is that it
Hello Kevin,
Friday, March 12, 2010, 6:52:32 PM, you wrote:
Jesse Keating wrote:
Fundamental point of view difference. You take the point of view of
push everything all the time /unless/ there is a good enough reason not
to.
Others take the point of view of not updating anything unless
Friday, March 12, 2010, 7:02:54 PM, Kevin wrote:
Al Dunsmuir wrote:
Maybe part of the answer is that some resources (especially
automation) need to be dedicated to keep the core critical components
of rawhide from being gratuitously broken and staying that way?
An answer to what
On Wednesday, March 10, 2010, 7:11:31 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Al Dunsmuir wrote:
The update to an older stable release should be made widely available
in that release's updates-testing after the equivalent (not
necessarily identical) fix has been widely tested in the latest stable
Hello Kevin,
Thursday, March 11, 2010, 8:09:02 AM, you wrote:
Al Dunsmuir wrote:
For older releases, the presumption/requirement for stability is
higher.
Nonsense. The previous and current stable releases are both equally
supported, there isn't one which is more stable than
On Wednesday, March 10, 2010, 7:24:18 AM, Mathieu Bridon wrote:
On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 13:06, Steven I Usdansky
Your proposal especially doesn't address the third point. How do
effectively you rollback the package on the mirrors when you don't
control them?
Assuming reversion to an
On Tuesday, March 9, 2010, 8:09:40 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Jesse Keating wrote:
On Tue, 2010-03-09 at 16:08 -0800, Josh Stone wrote:
It seems to cast doubt on the value of karma -- just because something
gets lots of positive karma on N doesn't mean that N-1 is ok. Then
again, the same
On Wednesday, March 10, 2010, 5:59:20 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Wed, 2010-03-10 at 22:44 +, Ewan Mac Mahon wrote:
The LHC is an interesting analogy; it certainly has problems that can be
picked out with 20:20 hindsight, but there was no way anyone could have
changed the processes in
Hello Seth,
Tuesday, March 9, 2010, 8:38:44 AM, you wrote:
On Tue, 9 Mar 2010, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
On Tuesday 09 March 2010 14:02:07 Seth Vidal wrote:
I'm sure with the same logic I can say a lot of things.
What I said was I want fewer broken things.
-sv
Seth,
The problem is that
Hello Seth,
Tuesday, March 9, 2010, 9:37:26 AM, you wrote:
On Tue, 9 Mar 2010, Al Dunsmuir wrote:
Hello Seth,
Tuesday, March 9, 2010, 9:23:00 AM, you wrote:
Your primary server runs fedora? May I ask why?
-sv
I have limited time to do system installs and maintenance. Sticking
Hello Seth,
Tuesday, March 9, 2010, 9:23:00 AM, you wrote:
Your primary server runs fedora? May I ask why?
-sv
I have limited time to do system installs and maintenance. Sticking
with one distribution helps keep that sane. I have a dual boot XP +
Ubuntu machine that I do some play with,
Hello Ewan,
Tuesday, March 9, 2010, 11:50:21 AM, you wrote:
On Tue, Mar 09, 2010 at 09:33:45AM -0500, Al Dunsmuir wrote:
Hello Seth,
Tuesday, March 9, 2010, 9:23:00 AM, you wrote:
Your primary server runs fedora? May I ask why?
-sv
I have limited time to do system installs
Hello Ewan,
Tuesday, March 9, 2010, 12:41:26 PM, you wrote:
On Tue, Mar 09, 2010 at 12:07:20PM -0500, Al Dunsmuir wrote:
To some extent, I view my current contribution to Fedora as being
unreasonable and insisting that it be able to perform basic server
tasks reasonably
Hello Michael,
Tuesday, March 9, 2010, 1:23:59 PM, you wrote:
On Tue, 9 Mar 2010 13:08:48 -0500, Al wrote:
I want more updates. I want them to be more frequent, incremental and
each reasonably well tested. Trying to do too many changes at a time
not only leads to an increased likelihood
On Tuesday, March 9, 2010, 2:10:04 PM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
However, I do wonder about some of the concerns about this being
a requirement for all packages. So, here's a counter-proposal/expansion.
If need be, each of these policies could be considered separately, although
they do stack on
On Tuesday, March 9, 2010, 2:49:00 PM, Dan Horák wrote:
Thanks Bill, this proposal is very similar to my dump of ideas posted
earlier today. The only thing I would like to improve (probably in
PackageKit) is the presentation of the content in updates-testing to the
users, to make it more
Hello James,
Tuesday, March 9, 2010, 2:53:22 PM, you wrote:
On Tue, 2010-03-09 at 13:41 -0500, Seth Vidal wrote:
On Tue, 9 Mar 2010, Michael Schwendt wrote:
If you - and the QA team - want to expand your testing activities, focus
on the CRITPATH packages first. Do a good job there.
On Tuesday, March 9, 2010, 3:20:25 PM, Adam Willamson wrote:
On Tue, 2010-03-09 at 15:13 -0500, Al Dunsmuir wrote:
1) All updates (even security) must pass AutoQA tests.
Rationale: If a package breaks dependencies, does not install, or
fails other obvious tests, it should not be pushed
Hello Krzysztof,
Tuesday, March 9, 2010, 3:36:43 PM, you wrote:
Matthew Garrett mj...@srcf.ucam.org writes:
2) It is impossible to ensure that functionality will not be reduced
without sufficient testing.
True.
The whole point of an update may be the deliberate removal of
-1. Nay. NoWay. No thanks. Uh uh.
I could find little or nothing in your proposal to which I agreed... so
decided not to quote any.
I just registered at Fedoraforums.org and voted adventurous in
Adam's poll. Just to make sure my voice is heard, and not the
shouting of
Hello Milos,
Monday, January 18, 2010, 2:27:22 PM, you wrote:
is there any good way how to handle the situation described at
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=528524
?
I.e. you have a single library (single soname) which can be compiled
with or without GUI support (with
79 matches
Mail list logo
