On 2013-10-17 04:30, Brendan Conoboy wrote:
On 10/16/2013 07:15 PM, Orion Poplawski wrote:
If your package uses the %configure macro, I would feel free to close
them as either invalid or fixed as that macro handles it. If your
package doesn't, you have more checking/work to do.
Thanks for
On Thu, 17 Oct 2013 08:16:40 +0200
Alec Leamas leamas.a...@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks for replying- this slipped through my inbox. You can also
see if your package was built successfully by visiting
On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 2:16 PM, Alec Leamas leamas.a...@gmail.com wrote:
Hm, I get 404 on that URL?!
http://arm-temp.ausil.us/pub/fedora-arm/stage4/
Yours sincerely,
Christopher Meng
Always playing in Fedora Project
http://cicku.me
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
On 2013-10-17 08:18, Frank Murphy wrote:
On Thu, 17 Oct 2013 08:16:40 +0200
Alec Leamas leamas.a...@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks for replying- this slipped through my inbox. You can also
see if your package was built successfully by visiting
On 10/13/2013 1:34 PM, Till Maas wrote:
Hi,
some time ago several bugs regarding aarch64 support were opened.
According to
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=922257#c1
most of the bugs seem to be wrong. Nevertheless, there was no status
update at least in the bugs created for my
On 10/16/2013 07:15 PM, Orion Poplawski wrote:
If your package uses the %configure macro, I would feel free to close
them as either invalid or fixed as that macro handles it. If your
package doesn't, you have more checking/work to do.
Thanks for replying- this slipped through my inbox. You
Hi,
some time ago several bugs regarding aarch64 support were opened.
According to
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=922257#c1
most of the bugs seem to be wrong. Nevertheless, there was no status
update at least in the bugs created for my packages. Should the bugs
just be closed as
