On Tue, Jun 4, 2019, 15:59 Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, 2 Jun 2019 at 15:14, Miro Hrončok wrote:
>
>> On 31. 05. 19 16:10, Fabio Valentini wrote:
>> > On Thu, May 30, 2019 at 8:19 PM Adam Jackson wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Since I was looking at a copy of the F30 repo for amd64, here's a
On Sun, 2 Jun 2019 at 15:14, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> On 31. 05. 19 16:10, Fabio Valentini wrote:
> > On Thu, May 30, 2019 at 8:19 PM Adam Jackson wrote:
> >>
> >> Since I was looking at a copy of the F30 repo for amd64, here's a list
> >> of a bunch of packages whose dist tag suggests they
On Mon, 3 Jun 2019 at 15:28, Adam Williamson
wrote:
> On Mon, 2019-06-03 at 20:06 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> > On 6/3/19 7:05 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > > Some people don't see any problem with this, personally it drives me
> > > crazy and I wish it were policy that *every* retired
On Mon, 2019-06-03 at 20:06 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On 6/3/19 7:05 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > Some people don't see any problem with this, personally it drives me
> > crazy and I wish it were policy that *every* retired package must be
> > obsoleted. But it isn't.
> I am quite shocked
On Mon, Jun 03, 2019 at 12:47:53 +0200,
Hans de Goede wrote:
I once maintained this, it seems that Bruno, who took it over,
no longer has time to maintain this.
Yeah, but leave me as a co-maintainer as things might get better. I did some
CI work for squashfs-tools a couple of weeks ago, so
On Mon, Jun 03, 2019 at 01:32:41PM -0400, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> On Mon, 3 Jun 2019 at 13:17, Chris Murphy wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 11:07 AM Adam Williamson
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sun, 2019-06-02 at 21:35 -0600, Chris Murphy wrote:
> > > > Perhaps related, on an upgraded
On 5/30/19 1:18 PM, Adam Jackson wrote:
Fedora 26
...
mingw-wine-gecko-2.47-2.fc26.src.rpm
I would welcome eyes on this. Upstream has been informed about it, but they have not
issued any new release.
This package is basically a mini-Firefox and usually breaks from Mingw-w64 updates.
I
On 6/3/19 7:05 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
Some people don't see any problem with this, personally it drives me
crazy and I wish it were policy that *every* retired package must be
obsoleted. But it isn't.
I am quite shocked to hear this from you. I wouldn't have expected this
attitude from you.
On 6/3/19 1:16 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 11:07 AM Adam Williamson
wrote:
Some people don't see any problem with this, personally it drives me
crazy and I wish it were policy that *every* retired package must be
obsoleted. But it isn't.
Not obsoleting retired packages is
On Mon, 3 Jun 2019 at 13:17, Chris Murphy wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 11:07 AM Adam Williamson
> wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, 2019-06-02 at 21:35 -0600, Chris Murphy wrote:
> > > Perhaps related, on an upgraded Fedora 30 system I see
> > > ghostscript-fonts-5.50-37.fc27.noarch, which does not
On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 11:07 AM Adam Williamson
wrote:
>
> On Sun, 2019-06-02 at 21:35 -0600, Chris Murphy wrote:
> > Perhaps related, on an upgraded Fedora 30 system I see
> > ghostscript-fonts-5.50-37.fc27.noarch, which does not appear on any
> > clean installed systems, and also can't be
On Sun, 2019-06-02 at 21:35 -0600, Chris Murphy wrote:
> Perhaps related, on an upgraded Fedora 30 system I see
> ghostscript-fonts-5.50-37.fc27.noarch, which does not appear on any
> clean installed systems, and also can't be installed (Error: Unable to
> find a match ). That tells me it's been
Dne 03. 06. 19 v 5:47 Samuel Sieb napsal(a):
> On 6/2/19 8:35 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
>> Perhaps related, on an upgraded Fedora 30 system I see
>> ghostscript-fonts-5.50-37.fc27.noarch, which does not appear on any
>> clean installed systems, and also can't be installed (Error: Unable to
>> find
Dne 30. 05. 19 v 20:18 Adam Jackson napsal(a):
> Since I was looking at a copy of the F30 repo for amd64, here's a list
> of a bunch of packages whose dist tag suggests they haven't rebuilt
> successfully in any currently-supported Fedora release. I'm sure some
> of these are incompletely retired
On Thursday, 30 May 2019 20:18:35 CEST Adam Jackson wrote:
> Since I was looking at a copy of the F30 repo for amd64, here's a list
> of a bunch of packages whose dist tag suggests they haven't rebuilt
> successfully in any currently-supported Fedora release. I'm sure some
> of these are
Hi,
On 30-05-19 20:18, Adam Jackson wrote:
Since I was looking at a copy of the F30 repo for amd64, here's a list
of a bunch of packages whose dist tag suggests they haven't rebuilt
successfully in any currently-supported Fedora release. I'm sure some
of these are incompletely retired or
On Sun, Jun 02, 2019 at 08:47:34PM -0700, Samuel Sieb wrote:
> On 6/2/19 8:35 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
> >Perhaps related, on an upgraded Fedora 30 system I see
> >ghostscript-fonts-5.50-37.fc27.noarch, which does not appear on any
> >clean installed systems, and also can't be installed (Error:
On 6/2/19 8:35 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
Perhaps related, on an upgraded Fedora 30 system I see
ghostscript-fonts-5.50-37.fc27.noarch, which does not appear on any
clean installed systems, and also can't be installed (Error: Unable to
find a match ). That tells me it's been dropped or is obsolete,
Perhaps related, on an upgraded Fedora 30 system I see
ghostscript-fonts-5.50-37.fc27.noarch, which does not appear on any
clean installed systems, and also can't be installed (Error: Unable to
find a match ). That tells me it's been dropped or is obsolete, so is
it normal for such packages to
On Sun, Jun 2, 2019, 21:14 Miro Hrončok wrote:
> On 31. 05. 19 16:10, Fabio Valentini wrote:
> > On Thu, May 30, 2019 at 8:19 PM Adam Jackson wrote:
> >>
> >> Since I was looking at a copy of the F30 repo for amd64, here's a list
> >> of a bunch of packages whose dist tag suggests they haven't
On 31. 05. 19 16:10, Fabio Valentini wrote:
On Thu, May 30, 2019 at 8:19 PM Adam Jackson wrote:
Since I was looking at a copy of the F30 repo for amd64, here's a list
of a bunch of packages whose dist tag suggests they haven't rebuilt
successfully in any currently-supported Fedora release.
On Sat, Jun 01, 2019 at 08:37:08AM +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> On Fri, May 31, 2019 at 11:23:14AM -0400, Scott Talbert wrote:
> > On Fri, 31 May 2019, Przemek Klosowski wrote:
> >
> > >On 5/30/19 2:18 PM, Adam Jackson wrote:
> > >>Since I was looking at a copy of the F30 repo for
On Fri, May 31, 2019 at 11:23:14AM -0400, Scott Talbert wrote:
> On Fri, 31 May 2019, Przemek Klosowski wrote:
>
> >On 5/30/19 2:18 PM, Adam Jackson wrote:
> >>Since I was looking at a copy of the F30 repo for amd64, here's a list
> >>of a bunch of packages whose dist tag suggests they haven't
On 5/31/19 11:16 AM, Chris Murphy wrote:
> Przemek's emails go to spam, on gmail. I thought after the recent
> thread about dmarc stuff that this wouldn't happen anymore, at least
> on devel@
The DMARC mitigation is enabled for devel list. I am not sure why it's
not matching his emails. Can you
Przemek's emails go to spam, on gmail. I thought after the recent
thread about dmarc stuff that this wouldn't happen anymore, at least
on devel@ but I continue to see half dozen Fedora users' emails go to
spam on mostly test@ but also sometimes devel@ too.
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1;
On Fri, 31 May 2019, Przemek Klosowski wrote:
On 5/30/19 2:18 PM, Adam Jackson wrote:
Since I was looking at a copy of the F30 repo for amd64, here's a list
of a bunch of packages whose dist tag suggests they haven't rebuilt
successfully in any currently-supported Fedora release. I'm sure some
On 5/30/19 2:18 PM, Adam Jackson wrote:
Since I was looking at a copy of the F30 repo for amd64, here's a list
of a bunch of packages whose dist tag suggests they haven't rebuilt
successfully in any currently-supported Fedora release. I'm sure some
of these are incompletely retired or there's
On Thu, May 30, 2019 at 8:19 PM Adam Jackson wrote:
>
> Since I was looking at a copy of the F30 repo for amd64, here's a list
> of a bunch of packages whose dist tag suggests they haven't rebuilt
> successfully in any currently-supported Fedora release. I'm sure some
> of these are incompletely
Since I was looking at a copy of the F30 repo for amd64, here's a list
of a bunch of packages whose dist tag suggests they haven't rebuilt
successfully in any currently-supported Fedora release. I'm sure some
of these are incompletely retired or there's otherwise some good reason
for it, this is
29 matches
Mail list logo
