On 04/24/2012 05:10 PM, Petr Pisar wrote:
commit 69efbb099367a7ff6a35107cc3079a02a8e599f5
Author: Petr Písařppi...@redhat.com
Date: Tue Apr 24 15:38:58 2012 +0200
Do not use Test::Kwalitee on RHEL= 7
Why? In general, dropping tests is a short-sighted idea.
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
On 04/24/2012 07:42 PM, Paul Howarth wrote:
On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 18:09:35 +0200
Ralf Corsepiusrc040...@freenet.de wrote:
On 04/24/2012 05:10 PM, Petr Pisar wrote:
commit 69efbb099367a7ff6a35107cc3079a02a8e599f5
Author: Petr Písařppi...@redhat.com
Date: Tue Apr 24 15:38:58 2012 +0200
On 04/23/2012 03:06 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Fri, 2012-04-20 at 09:58 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
Why isn't adding a link to an explanation to avoid misunderstandings
originating from conotations sufficient anymore? This is at least what
had been done in the past.
'sufficient' to what
On 04/20/2012 08:34 AM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 10:00:58PM -0500, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
On 04/19/2012 07:04 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
This cycle, the Board is also asking contributors to let us know if we
should continue to have release names for future Fedora
On 04/20/2012 05:21 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 09:36:17AM +0100, Richard Hughes wrote:
On 20 April 2012 07:41, Toshio Kuratomia.bad...@gmail.com wrote:
As for the poll -- The Board has heard a lot of people asking to remove code
names but is unsure if thats just
On 04/05/2012 05:23 PM, Panu Matilainen wrote:
The point with %{_isa} in dependency names is that it eliminates the
problematic ambiguity.
Really? I think %{_isa} is harmful, because it breaks arch - noarch
updates, and tries to project depsolver bugs into rpms.
Ralf
--
devel mailing list
On 04/04/2012 01:36 PM, Tomasz Torcz wrote:
On Wed, Apr 04, 2012 at 11:51:08AM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
drago01 wrote:
We could just make anaconda remove everything in /tmp ... done.
First of all, renaming it as Simo Sorce suggested makes more sense.
But secondly, what you both miss is
On 04/01/2012 07:40 AM, Alec Leamas wrote:
My problem is about possible ways to form the version-release fields for
a git post-release.. My example involves a version like 1.1.0 and a git
release like 20120329git1234567
Reading [1], all examples of post-release updates are on the form
On 03/30/2012 05:00 PM, Karel Klíč wrote:
Michael Schwendtmschwe...@gmail.com writes:
On Fri, 30 Mar 2012 09:09:51 -0400, bugzilla wrote:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=789636
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 759143 ***
This one is highly suspicious. It would
On 03/20/2012 04:58 PM, Brendan Conoboy wrote:
On 03/20/2012 08:24 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
I think the speed of the build hardware should be also part of the
criteria,
as all primary architectures are built synchronously. GCC on x86_64/i686
currently builds often in 2 hours, sometimes in 4
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 said, I considera cross-building environment for secondary
On 03/20/2012 07:05 PM, Brendan Conoboy wrote:
On 03/20/2012 10:44 AM, drago01 wrote:
On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 5:56 PM, Brendan Conoboyb...@redhat.com wrote:
Please, please, no. Cross compilation for Fedora cannot and will not
ever
get a secondary arch to primary. We're talking man-decades of
On 03/02/2012 12:12 PM, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
On 03/02/2012 11:02 AM, Marcela Mašláňová wrote:
Ok, so you'll automatically start non-responsive maintainer process,
because maintainer didn't work on a one bug. But he might be working on
different component for whole month. He might be
On 02/27/2012 02:14 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
On Mon, 2012-02-27 at 08:07 +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
Kevin Fenzi wrote on 27.02.2012 04:21:
#topic #810 Clarify our position on forks .fesco 810
It's just a statement that is asked for in the ticket, but nevertheless:
Shouldn't issues
On 02/15/2012 10:37 AM, drago01 wrote:
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 1:26 AM, Kevin Koflerkevin.kof...@chello.at wrote:
Lennart Poettering wrote:
Because dropping these dirs from the search paths is merely an
optimization, not a requirement.
You call it an optimization, I call it fixing a
On 02/10/2012 10:06 AM, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
On 02/10/2012 04:45 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
In this spirit, I eg. would propose to table usrmove for F17 and to
concentrate on systemd integration and anaconda/grub2 improvements,
both topics, I perceived as the hall of shame of F16
On 02/10/2012 12:11 PM, Michael Schroeder wrote:
On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 11:28:59AM +0100, Olav Vitters wrote:
It has been approved, other distributions are following. It is very
clear you do not want this. But at the same time, it is happening in
Fedora and elsewhere (noticed openSUSE, will
On 02/10/2012 01:34 PM, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
On 02/10/2012 10:49 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 02/10/2012 10:06 AM, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
On 02/10/2012 04:45 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
In this spirit, I eg. would propose to table usrmove for F17 and to
concentrate on systemd
On 02/10/2012 01:05 PM, Michal Schmidt wrote:
Ralf Corsepius wrote:
Let me put it this way: I am having difficulties in recalling any
Fedora release which worked for me out of the box ...
In earlier releases there for example were pulseaudio and SELinux, in
current releases it's primarily
On 02/10/2012 04:51 PM, Przemek Klosowski wrote:
On 02/09/2012 11:45 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
Let me put it this way: I am having difficulties in recalling any Fedora
release which worked for me out of the box ...
...
That said, IMO, on the technical side, Fedora urgently needs a calming
On 02/10/2012 02:28 PM, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
On 02/10/2012 01:17 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
Ok, then my advice to you is: Stop shifiting around responsibilities
and start to work. Team up with others and start working on migrating
the remaining not-converted services.
Excuse me
On 02/09/2012 01:36 AM, Jesse Keating wrote:
On 2/8/12 4:30 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
it is a very good idea because the overall quality of fedora would
be improved if there would be a larger release-blocking to get
the big changes fixed BEFORE alpha and in the meantime not involved
maintainers
On 02/09/2012 11:06 PM, Jared K. Smith wrote:
On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 11:57 AM, Ralf Corsepiusrc040...@freenet.de wrote:
IMO, Fedora has obvious problems with its
- work-flow (Too immature SW migrates/sneaks through from Alpha/Beta to
Final)
If you feel this is the case, feel free to help
On 02/07/2012 08:08 AM, Bohuslav Kabrda wrote:
- Original Message -
On 02/07/2012 07:38 AM, Bohuslav Kabrda wrote:
Hi Tom,
- Original Message -
---
The section of the Packaging Guidelines covering /srv was amended
to
include /opt and /usr/local. Specifically, the following
On 02/07/2012 02:51 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
From a practical perspective, I do tend to agree that putting software
under /opt/fedora would be in line with the FHS and also unlikely to
break anything.
I am inclined to agree, but why would the Fedora project want to do this
and not to
On 02/07/2012 12:56 PM, Marcela Mašláňová wrote:
On 02/07/2012 10:04 AM, Michal Schmidt wrote:
Bohuslav Kabrda wrote:
And more importantly:
Distributions may install software in /opt, but must not modify or
delete software installed by the local system administrator without
the assent of the
On 02/07/2012 07:38 AM, Bohuslav Kabrda wrote:
Hi Tom,
- Original Message -
---
The section of the Packaging Guidelines covering /srv was amended to
include /opt and /usr/local. Specifically, the following sentence was
added:
In addition, no Fedora package can have any files or
On 01/30/2012 07:56 AM, Bohuslav Kabrda wrote:
- Original Message -
On 01/27/2012 12:21 PM, Bohuslav Kabrda wrote:
Yes, we are of course trying to push the patches upstream, but it
is a bit problematic, since the upstream says, that this is an
FHS-specific issue and they only want to
On 01/28/2012 10:47 AM, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
[1] Improved compatibility with Solaris - Seriously? We didn't need
that level of compatibility back when Linux was a small niche, why
would we care now?
I feel mildly insulted by that argument.
Why stop with Solaris compatibility and not mimick
On 01/27/2012 06:05 PM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
Toshio Kuratomi (a.bad...@gmail.com) said:
Actually... we will always need the compat symlinks (for a finite but
definitely long value of always). Third party scripts, scripts that have
been in use on local systems, written by people who have long
On 01/27/2012 06:33 PM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
Ralf Corsepius (rc040...@freenet.de) said:
On 01/27/2012 06:05 PM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
Toshio Kuratomi (a.bad...@gmail.com) said:
Actually... we will always need the compat symlinks (for a finite but
definitely long value of always). Third
On 01/27/2012 07:43 PM, Jef Spaleta wrote:
On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 8:43 AM, Reindl Haraldh.rei...@thelounge.net wrote:
if you finally want have /bin as symlink forever this whole
change is only wasted time and makes no sense at all
If you haven't read the new summary write-up on the benefits
On 01/26/2012 06:51 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
On Thu, 26 Jan 2012 12:15:01 -0500
Mark Bidewellmbide...@gmail.com wrote:
I just had a conversation which I believe sheds some light on the
problem which a rolling release is trying to solve. The example is
Ubuntu bu you could apply the same to
On 01/27/2012 06:22 AM, Sérgio Basto wrote:
On Thu, 2012-01-26 at 12:08 +0100, Jan Kratochvil wrote:
On Thu, 26 Jan 2012 08:12:43 +0100, Sérgio Basto wrote:
/usr/bin/kmk_sed: file
/builddir/build/BUILD/VirtualBox-4.1.8_OSE/src/VBox/Runtime/common/err/errmsg.sed
line 31: Unmatched [ or [^
On 01/24/2012 01:24 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 11:23:14AM +, mike cloaked wrote:
Fedora would appear to be out of line in not taking on board the
potential user base for a rolling release version. For servers there
would be huge advantages in management of
On 01/24/2012 03:45 PM, Marcela Mašláňová wrote:
So called red-hat perl is popular again on Perl porters. I guess if
you have any proposals about Perl packaging, now it's the best time to
say so.
The main problem is that 'yum install perl' doesn't install whole Perl
tarball.
It should not. It
On 01/24/2012 06:15 PM, Dave Cross wrote:
On 01/24/2012 04:28 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 01/24/2012 03:45 PM, Marcela Mašláňová wrote:
So called red-hat perl is popular again on Perl porters. I guess if
you have any proposals about Perl packaging, now it's the best time to
say so.
The main
On 01/20/2012 08:39 AM, Marcela Mašláňová wrote:
On 01/20/2012 12:31 AM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
I use closed/upstream, when I already fixed it in upstream. This bug
should be closed with number of release, where it is fixed or with the
link to the commit. I wouldn't blame this state for not
On 01/20/2012 02:04 PM, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
- Original Message -
On Fri, 2012-01-20 at 09:30 +, Tim Waugh wrote:
We already had this discussion, I don't recall exactly - two years ago
and the resolution was similar - rename CLOSED UPSTREAM to HOLD UPSTREAM.
I can try to find
On 01/20/2012 05:55 PM, Emmanuel Seyman wrote:
* Ralf Corsepius [20/01/2012 15:25] :
... and why no simply keep these BZs open and/or to add a note
Because the bug isn't open.
Surely the bug is open: The product you are supposed to be responsible
for (A Fedora package) suffers from
On 01/20/2012 01:39 PM, Petr Šabata wrote:
On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 01:34:49AM +, build...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
perl-Bot-BasicBot has broken dependencies in the rawhide tree:
On x86_64:
perl-Bot-BasicBot-0.87-2.fc17.noarch requires perl(URI::Title)
On 01/20/2012 12:31 AM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
For the record, I am referencing
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/BugStatusWorkFlow#CLOSED
Currently, the official bug lifecycle includes the following phrase:
The resolution UPSTREAM can be used by maintainers to denote a bug that
they
On 01/17/2012 02:08 PM, Marc-André Lureau wrote:
Hi
On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 12:09 PM, Ralf Corsepiusrc040...@freenet.de wrote:
I disagree. Like other exotic languages, anything related to it should
remain strictly optional.
Unlike other bindings which are binaries and link or require
On 01/17/2012 05:26 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 09:54:39 -0500, SG (Stephen) wrote:
On Tue, 2012-01-17 at 02:21 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
While that makes some sense, it was not my point. My point was that even if
the package has NO maintainer, as long as it works, it's
On 01/16/2012 11:21 AM, Marc-André Lureau wrote:
On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 10:40 AM, Hans de Goedehdego...@redhat.com wrote:
Eitherway I think we need some (minimalistic) guidelines on
howto package vala bindings so that we can do this consistently
and with proper directory ownership.
Note
On 01/16/2012 03:20 AM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
On Sat, 14 Jan 2012 18:28:15 +0100
Kevin Koflerkevin.kof...@chello.at wrote:
Michael Schwendt wrote:
However, with the current features of pkgdb, each member of such a
group would need to subscribe to the package in pkgdb. Not just
for commit
On 01/13/2012 05:11 PM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
Each release, before branching, we block currently orphaned packages.
It's that time again for Fedora 17.
New this go-round is that we are also blocking packages that have
failed to build since before Fedora 15.
The following packages are
On 01/13/2012 06:49 PM, Jon Ciesla wrote:
On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 11:23 AM, Ralf Corsepiusrc040...@freenet.de wrote:
Note2: How to remove oneself as co-maintainer in the packagedb?
For those packages, I already was co-maintainer, I am now enrolled as both
maintainer and co-maintainer.
I
On 01/13/2012 10:51 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Fri, 13 Jan 2012 21:03:09 +0100, KK (Kevin) wrote:
When we're in danger of losing so many packages, it's a sign that our
processes are broken:
That's a dubious conclusion.
I concur with Kevin.
* The whole concept of packages being owned,
On 01/13/2012 10:10 PM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
Sérgio Basto (ser...@serjux.com) said:
The script that generated this page can be found at
https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/browser/scripts/find-unblocked-orphans.py
This script is supposed to run on my laptop , if I have a fas account
and keys
On 01/11/2012 10:07 AM, Petr Pisar wrote:
On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 09:51:32AM +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 01/11/2012 09:26 AM, Marcela Mašláňová wrote:
On 01/11/2012 05:18 AM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
Note that the perl-sig pseudo-user could own the packages if the perl-sig
wants to continue
On 01/11/2012 09:26 AM, Marcela Mašláňová wrote:
On 01/11/2012 05:18 AM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 04:36:24AM +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
I was under the impression, it's the perl-sig's intention to have
packages which loose its primary maintainer, to be colaboratively
On 01/11/2012 09:26 AM, Marcela Mašláňová wrote:
On 01/11/2012 05:18 AM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 04:36:24AM +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
I was under the impression, it's the perl-sig's intention to have
packages which loose its primary maintainer, to be colaboratively
On 01/11/2012 03:30 AM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
As part of the announced cleanup after the mass password and ssh key reset,
packages that had owners who were inactive at this time were orphaned.
comaintainer who were inactive were likewise removed from packages.
The list of orphaned packages is
Hi,
I am observing weird build failures for f15:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3638192
The corresponding root.log
(http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/getfile?taskID=3638193name=root.log)
tells this:
,,,
DEBUG backend.py:862: ['/usr/bin/yum', '--installroot',
On 01/11/2012 03:30 AM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
As part of the announced cleanup after the mass password and ssh key reset,
packages that had owners who were inactive at this time were orphaned.
comaintainer who were inactive were likewise removed from packages.
The list of orphaned packages is
On 01/09/2012 02:09 PM, Petr Šabata wrote:
On Sun, Jan 08, 2012 at 02:21:07PM +0100, Emmanuel Seyman wrote:
Hi, all.
As you probably know, a significant number of packages are going to be
orphaned on Tuesday, some of them perl-related. I'm interested in a few of
these so I'll be applying for:
On 01/05/2012 09:21 PM, Jon Masters wrote:
On Thu, 2012-01-05 at 11:18 -0600, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
El Thu, 05 Jan 2012 10:37:41 -0500
Tom Callawaytcall...@redhat.com escribió:
On 01/05/2012 09:40 AM, Richard Shaw wrote:
I just didn't know if there was any filtering going on for the
mass
On 01/05/2012 10:06 PM, Jon Masters wrote:
On Thu, 2012-01-05 at 21:47 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
I guess you are referring an ordered rebuild, not a simple sequential
rebuild.
The latter would be mostly useless.
For bootstrapping, ideally there would be ordered rebuilds, but even any
On 01/05/2012 11:55 PM, Adam Jackson wrote:
On Thu, 2012-01-05 at 22:38 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
They do not mean the resulting packages are more or less broken than
those having been built by predecessors of the toolchains.
Neither does an ordered rebuild. Even assuming the concept
On 12/01/2011 11:23 AM, Paul Howarth wrote:
Ralf,
On 11/18/2011 05:53 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 11/18/2011 05:32 PM, Paul Howarth wrote:
It already builds with -Wall and there are no warnings:
This doesn't mean much.
Adding a couple of more agressive options, this is what happens
On 12/01/2011 07:11 PM, Paul Howarth wrote:
On Thu, 01 Dec 2011 15:45:48 +0100
Ralf Corsepiusrc040...@freenet.de wrote:
On 12/01/2011 11:23 AM, Paul Howarth wrote:
Ralf,
On 11/18/2011 05:53 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 11/18/2011 05:32 PM, Paul Howarth wrote:
It already builds with -Wall
On 11/30/2011 03:49 PM, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
David Howells wrote:
rpmbuild.
There's your answer. The rpmbuild command would inherit all the packages
already installed on your system. You will already have systemd-units
installed because it is a dependency of just about every service.
On 11/22/2011 06:51 PM, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
What do people see as pros and cons continuing to use the current
package ownership model?
ownership = responsibility
Would it be practical to dropping it altogether which in essence would
make every contributor an proven packager?
No.
On 11/19/2011 01:23 PM, Andrew Haley wrote:
On 11/18/2011 11:32 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Andrew Haleya...@redhat.com writes:
On 11/18/2011 05:53 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
pptp.c:459:33: warning: dereferencing type-punned pointer might break
strict-aliasing rules [-Wstrict-aliasing]
Bingo! Bugs
On 11/19/2011 06:23 AM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 11:27 PM, Ralf Corsepiusrc040...@freenet.de wrote:
[1] -Wstrict-aliasing is one of these cases.
The spots such warnings point to, often are broken, but not always,
because GCC has difficulties in identifying these.
This
On 11/18/2011 05:32 PM, Paul Howarth wrote:
On Fri, 18 Nov 2011 15:28:27 +
Andrew Haleya...@redhat.com wrote:
On 11/18/2011 11:31 AM, Paul Howarth wrote:
One of my packages, pptp, suffers occasional segfaults as reported
in http://bugzilla.redhat.com/749455. However, whilst
On 11/19/2011 04:57 AM, Xose Vazquez Perez wrote:
Kevin Kofler wrote:
Indeed, -Wall is not really all. :-) -Wall -Wextra is closer to all, but
there are still some things those won't warn about, e.g. -Wwrite-strings
catches places which use a string literal as a potentially writable char *
On 11/14/2011 05:50 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 12:31:21PM -0500, Clyde E. Kunkel wrote:
Also, how about a non-technical member from the general user community?
Very strong no from me.
FESCO is a technical committee, supposed to provide strategic technical
decisions and
On 10/27/2011 07:52 AM, David Tardon wrote:
On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 03:23:55PM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
Besides this, one may have the opinion, that no binaries should be
allowed in /usr/lib/. Fedora never enforced this rule, because RH has a
tradition of being sloppy wrt. /usr/lib
On 10/26/2011 03:18 PM, Harald Hoyer wrote:
On 10/26/2011 03:07 PM, Chris Adams wrote:
Once upon a time, Richard W.M. Jonesrjo...@redhat.com said:
Having said that, the split between /sbin and /bin is not a truly
historical one, ie. it didn't exist in V7. I think it was added by
System V
On 10/26/2011 03:40 PM, Harald Hoyer wrote:
On 10/24/2011 08:05 PM, Chris Adams wrote:
===
#fedora-meeting: FESCO (2011-10-24)
===
* Discussion about https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/UsrMove
(t8m, 17:26:45)
On 10/25/2011 09:02 AM, Harald Hoyer wrote:
On 10/24/2011 08:05 PM, Chris Adams wrote:
===
#fedora-meeting: FESCO (2011-10-24)
===
* Discussion about https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/UsrMove
(t8m, 17:26:45)
On 10/25/2011 08:33 PM, Michał Piotrowski wrote:
2011/10/25 Chris Adamscmad...@hiwaay.net:
Once upon a time, Michał Piotrowskimkkp...@gmail.com said:
I created feature page
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/F18MorePortableInterpreters
I strongly object to this feature. /bin/sh is a
On 10/12/2011 09:59 PM, Mike McGrath wrote:
On Wed, 12 Oct 2011, Henrik Nordström wrote:
ons 2011-10-12 klockan 13:04 -0500 skrev Mike McGrath:
Lots of people use and share keys across different projects.
There is no security issue in sharing kes across different projects,
other than that
On 10/13/2011 11:13 AM, Tomas Mraz wrote:
On Thu, 2011-10-13 at 10:59 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 10/12/2011 09:59 PM, Mike McGrath wrote:
On Wed, 12 Oct 2011, Henrik Nordström wrote:
ons 2011-10-12 klockan 13:04 -0500 skrev Mike McGrath:
Lots of people use and share keys across
On 10/05/2011 04:35 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
On Wed, Oct 05, 2011 at 06:53:50AM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 10/04/2011 09:01 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
Now do we want to put the git hash into the version
field too?
Yes, because git checkouts by date are not sufficiently reliable
On 10/04/2011 08:04 AM, Eric Smith wrote:
I wrote:
What should I use for the release number in a spec when upstream does
not have releases, and *only* has git hashes? It's not a prerelease
since it is not clear that there will ever be any official release.
I meant version number, not
On 10/04/2011 09:01 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
On Tue, Oct 04, 2011 at 05:58:33PM +0200, Matej Cepl wrote:
On 4.10.2011 16:38, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
The date should not go there
as you cannot tell if upstream will someday switch to an actual version
string (which will then need an Epoch to
On 10/03/2011 06:01 PM, Michael Ekstrand wrote:
On 10/03/2011 10:48 AM, Camilo Mesias wrote:
Hi,
A daft question perhaps, but I thought...
I'm not sure how we can make DPI magically be correct in gazillions of
broken displays' EDID.
How do other OS' do it?
I don't know that they do. In
On 09/20/2011 01:12 PM, Branched Report wrote:
Compose started at Tue Sep 20 08:15:41 UTC 2011
Broken deps for x86_64
--
This breakage is weird:
hosts3d-1.13-2.fc15.x86_64 requires libglfw.so.2.6()(64bit)
In Fedora 16, libglfw
On 09/22/2011 11:31 AM, Kalev Lember wrote:
On 09/22/2011 12:05 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 09/20/2011 01:12 PM, Branched Report wrote:
Compose started at Tue Sep 20 08:15:41 UTC 2011
Broken deps for x86_64
--
This breakage is weird
On 09/22/2011 01:11 PM, Kalev Lember wrote:
On 09/22/2011 12:52 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 09/22/2011 11:31 AM, Kalev Lember wrote:
Depends on how you want to resolve this. If you are going for
resurrecting the packages, then fix them up to build again and submit
new package review requests
On 09/22/2011 05:58 PM, Till Maas wrote:
On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 09:15:38AM +0200, Marcela Mašláňová wrote:
I hope you don't suggest for every rebuild of few dependent packages one
FESCo ticket.
This is what is currently required to ask FES for help. It is certainly
a lot better and more
On 09/21/2011 01:25 PM, Nils Philippsen wrote:
On Tue, 2011-09-20 at 22:25 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 09/20/2011 05:52 PM, Nils Philippsen wrote:
On Tue, 2011-09-20 at 15:19 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
When you have a closer look, you'll notice that such mass rebuilts
were being
On 09/21/2011 04:43 PM, Nils Philippsen wrote:
On Wed, 2011-09-21 at 15:51 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 09/21/2011 01:25 PM, Nils Philippsen wrote:
On Tue, 2011-09-20 at 22:25 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 09/20/2011 05:52 PM, Nils Philippsen wrote:
On Tue, 2011-09-20 at 15:19 +0200
On 09/20/2011 03:01 PM, Nils Philippsen wrote:
On Tue, 2011-09-20 at 13:53 +0200, Johannes Lips wrote:
What's wrong with all that broken deps? Is this just a missing rebuild
against opencv and other libs or what's the reason for all this
mess. I mean the release of F16 is not that far away and
On 09/20/2011 03:47 PM, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 15:01:06 +0200,
Nils Philippsenn...@redhat.com wrote:
I'd like to see a discussion about how we can ensure -- within
reasonable limits -- that e.g. bumping a library's SONAME is followed by
dependent components being
On 09/20/2011 04:16 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 04:13:27PM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 09/20/2011 04:03 PM, Adam Jackson wrote:
I'd like to see a rationale for jamming a soname-changing update into
the OS so close to a release.
Maintainers on vacation, non-trivial
On 09/20/2011 04:37 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 04:35:16PM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
That said, a reasonable QA would cherry-pick such solution
candidates from *-testing and integrate them. Simply flooding
maintainers with complaint mails about broken deps
On 09/20/2011 05:52 PM, Nils Philippsen wrote:
On Tue, 2011-09-20 at 15:19 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
When you have a closer look, you'll notice that such mass rebuilts
were being delayed by QA's delay queue and now are stuck.
I didn't want to (re)start that particular discussion
On 09/20/2011 05:30 PM, Doug Ledford wrote:
- Original Message -
I'd like to see a rationale for jamming a soname-changing update into
the OS so close to a release. In the absence of a very good
motivation,
that's not good engineering practice, and it's not consistent with
the
On 09/20/2011 04:33 PM, Adam Jackson wrote:
Of course, you had the option of not pulling the new OpenSceneGraph back
to F16, or simply not doing so yet.
Correct. I could have opted to ship the distro which embraces novelty
with outdated, upstream unmaintained and upstream dead packages, no
On 09/15/2011 11:03 AM, drago01 wrote:
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 10:16 AM, Jan F. Chadimajchad...@redhat.com wrote:
[...]
. When watching the load of the virtual machine that starts with systemd it
is clear to me that the total CPU consumption is significantly greater than
in the case of
On 09/15/2011 09:42 AM, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
On 09/15/2011 05:25 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
In general, there are other factors coming into play, such as parallel
startup using more memory, parallelization not providing many advantages
on systems with a small number of CPU cores
On 09/15/2011 06:11 PM, Michal Schmidt wrote:
On 09/15/2011 05:54 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 09/15/2011 09:42 AM, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
On 09/15/2011 05:25 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
Anyway, some more figures: On the same machine, bootup times when
booting from a (slow) external (IDE
On 09/14/2011 04:31 PM, drago01 wrote:
On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 4:22 PM, Richard W.M. Jonesrjo...@redhat.com wrote:
On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 01:03:04AM +0200, Michał Piotrowski wrote:
Hi
2011/9/13 Tom Lanet...@redhat.com:
(This isn't new with 9.1, btw --- the last version or so of 9.0
for
On 09/14/2011 06:23 PM, drago01 wrote:
On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 5:34 PM, Ralf Corsepiusrc040...@freenet.de wrote:
My netbook boots up F14 in ca. 60 secs, while F15 boots up in 62 secs.
I'd call this below measurement accuracy.
What kind of disk is that?
It's ca. 3 years old WD Scorpio Blue
On 08/29/2011 05:00 PM, Karel Zak wrote:
On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 08:47:40AM -0500, Jon Ciesla wrote:
That may be (both are human constructs, it's like say hey, that's made up
word!, but no, I don't. My point is simply that while it is extremely
silly code, it is in fact code provided by
On 08/26/2011 12:17 AM, Nathan O. wrote:
I am looking at
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text .
It sounds to me that upstream must provide the COPYING file.
No, this is a misinterpretation and overinterpretation
Upstreams need to license their works
701 - 800 of 1068 matches
Mail list logo
