On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 09:32:19 +0530, Ankur wrote:
On Tue, 2010-03-16 at 21:46 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Tue, 16 Mar 2010 15:46:16 -0400, James wrote:
Rpmfusion can run auto QA like tests on rpmfusion and Fedora (I don't
think we can legally do the same ... but I'm not sure).
On Tue, 2010-03-16 at 13:44 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 03/16/2010 01:37 PM, Matěj Cepl wrote:
Dne 16.3.2010 13:04, Jon Masters napsal(a):
I'd just add those gstreamer packages to my exclude config in yum for
the moment, if you don't want to deal with the breakage each time. Then
you
hey,
Trying a yum update gives me this. Broken update?
Transaction Check Error:
file /usr/lib64/gstreamer-0.10/libgstshapewipe.so from install of
gstreamer-plugins-good-0.10.21-1.fc12.x86_64 conflicts with file from
package gstreamer-plugins-bad-0.10.17-2.fc12.x86_64
file
On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 12:19:56PM +0530, Ankur Sinha wrote:
Trying a yum update gives me this. Broken update?
Transaction Check Error:
file /usr/lib64/gstreamer-0.10/libgstshapewipe.so from install of
gstreamer-plugins-good-0.10.21-1.fc12.x86_64 conflicts with file from
package
On Tue, 2010-03-16 at 08:51 +0100, Till Maas wrote:
On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 12:19:56PM +0530, Ankur Sinha wrote:
Trying a yum update gives me this. Broken update?
Transaction Check Error:
file /usr/lib64/gstreamer-0.10/libgstshapewipe.so from install of
Dne 16.3.2010 09:50, Ankur Sinha napsal(a):
I did notice that. I wasn't sure why a package from rpmfusion would
conflict with one from fedora repos. (It's in rpmfusion for a reason)
Is it being obsoleted by a fedora package (license been cleared or
something)?
There are constantly modules
On Tue, 2010-03-16 at 11:16 +0100, Matěj Cepl wrote:
Dne 16.3.2010 09:50, Ankur Sinha napsal(a):
I did notice that. I wasn't sure why a package from rpmfusion would
conflict with one from fedora repos. (It's in rpmfusion for a reason)
Is it being obsoleted by a fedora package (license been
On 03/16/2010 01:37 PM, Matěj Cepl wrote:
Dne 16.3.2010 13:04, Jon Masters napsal(a):
I'd just add those gstreamer packages to my exclude config in yum for
the moment, if you don't want to deal with the breakage each time. Then
you can remove those excludes when the repos catch up with each
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Thorsten Leemhuis from RPMFusion said why this is the case at the FUDCon
09 in Berlin and it will continue to be the case if nothing changes: No
collaboration and total underappreciation of RPMFusion's work. We cannot
legally endorse RPMFusion but we
Jon Masters wrote on 16.03.2010 13:04:
On Tue, 2010-03-16 at 11:16 +0100, Matěj Cepl wrote:
Dne 16.3.2010 09:50, Ankur Sinha napsal(a):
I did notice that. I wasn't sure why a package from rpmfusion would
conflict with one from fedora repos. (It's in rpmfusion for a reason)
Is it being
On Tue, 2010-03-16 at 13:45 +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
Jon Masters wrote on 16.03.2010 13:04:
On Tue, 2010-03-16 at 11:16 +0100, Matěj Cepl wrote:
Dne 16.3.2010 09:50, Ankur Sinha napsal(a):
I did notice that. I wasn't sure why a package from rpmfusion would
conflict with one from
Ankur Sinha wrote on 16.03.2010 14:33:
On Tue, 2010-03-16 at 13:45 +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
Jon Masters wrote on 16.03.2010 13:04:
On Tue, 2010-03-16 at 11:16 +0100, Matěj Cepl wrote:
Dne 16.3.2010 09:50, Ankur Sinha napsal(a):
I did notice that. I wasn't sure why a package from
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 03/16/2010 03:34 PM, Bastien Nocera wrote:
Except that that's not the case here, as Benjamin and I have been in
contact with Hans who takes care of the RPMFusion packages from the
start.
Thanks for the insight, didn't know this has changed in
On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 01:45:33PM +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
There are so many developers around on this list that know: reporting
bugs is the right way to get problems fixed and fixing things is way
better than posting workarounds to public places for various reasons --
nevertheless
On 16.03.2010 17:42, Till Maas wrote:
On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 01:45:33PM +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
There are so many developers around on this list that know: reporting
bugs is the right way to get problems fixed and fixing things is way
better than posting workarounds to public places
On Tue, 2010-03-16 at 20:09 +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
On 16.03.2010 17:42, Till Maas wrote:
On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 01:45:33PM +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
There are so many developers around on this list that know: reporting
bugs is the right way to get problems fixed and fixing
On Tue, 16 Mar 2010, James Antill wrote:
Rpmfusion can run auto QA like tests on rpmfusion and Fedora (I don't
think we can legally do the same ... but I'm not sure). Finding the file
conflicts automatically is harder (you need to download all the rpms),
and it's not fast, but it's
On 16.03.2010 20:46, James Antill wrote:
On Tue, 2010-03-16 at 20:09 +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
On 16.03.2010 17:42, Till Maas wrote:
On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 01:45:33PM +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
There are so many developers around on this list that know: reporting
bugs is the right
On Tue, 16 Mar 2010, Jesse Keating wrote:
On Tue, 2010-03-16 at 15:46 -0400, James Antill wrote:
but it's possible (Seth has a script, IIRC).
I do believe seth's script works purely from metadata without
downloading the rpms.
it gets the headers from the pkgs w/o downloading the whole
On Tue, 16 Mar 2010 15:46:16 -0400, James wrote:
Rpmfusion can run auto QA like tests on rpmfusion and Fedora (I don't
think we can legally do the same ... but I'm not sure). Finding the file
conflicts automatically is harder (you need to download all the rpms),
and it's not fast, but it's
On Tue, 2010-03-16 at 21:46 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Tue, 16 Mar 2010 15:46:16 -0400, James wrote:
Rpmfusion can run auto QA like tests on rpmfusion and Fedora (I don't
think we can legally do the same ... but I'm not sure). Finding the file
conflicts automatically is harder
21 matches
Mail list logo
