On Saturday 06 March 2010 19:38:16 Michał Piotrowski wrote:
2010/3/6 Naheem Zaffar naheemzaf...@gmail.com:
2010/3/6 Michał Piotrowski mkkp...@gmail.com
Why I can install KDE 4.4 in F11 and I can't install latest gnome?
(I'm just asking because I'm curious, not because I use Linux on
On Friday 05 March 2010 18:37:06 Matthew Woehlke wrote:
Petrus de Calguarium wrote:
As I had expected, breaking up the monolithic
packages into individual packages is a whole lot
of unnecessary work. Better to provide releases
as they occur, than to waste time unnecessarily
breaking
On 03/08/2010 11:20 AM, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
Major KDE update was in time of Fedora 9, so it's not an issue today.
And this it the first problem - we should not call major, minor, bugfix
release
because it doesn't mean the same for every each app out in the wild!!!
Yes, it can get
For now in fedora there are 11 packages which contains language
mutations of man-pages (man-pages-{cs,da,de,es,fr,it,ja,ko,pl,ru,uk})
and man-pages package.
Only 2 of them (man-pages-es, man-pages-it) requires man package. I
think man dependences should be consistent in all man-pages*
The latest sos update is not signed:
[hugh...@hughsie-t61 packages]$ rpm -qp sos-1.9-1.fc12.noarch.rpm
warning: sos-1.9-1.fc12.noarch.rpm: Header V3 RSA/SHA256 Signature,
key ID 57bbccba: NOKEY
This causes PackageKit to barf. How come this update was pushed
without a signature and all the other
Am Montag, den 08.03.2010, 12:27 +0200 schrieb Juha Tuomala:
Again, you can't cut regressions from features :(
To name few, your last push comes with:
- kmail that can't anymore 'Add address to book'.
- kaddressbook doesn't have 'Merge' feature anymore.
- kaddressbook View, Edit, Tools
On 8 March 2010 10:59, Michael Schwendt mschwe...@gmail.com wrote:
That means you don't have the key installed:
This is a fresh F13 pre-alpha spin, updated last a few days ago.
$ rpm -Kv sos-1.9-1.fc12.noarch.rpm
sos-1.9-1.fc12.noarch.rpm:
Header V3 RSA/SHA256 signature: OK, key ID
On 7 March 2010 20:18, Neal Becker wrote:
Updating : selinux-policy-targeted-3.6.32-92.fc12.noarch
64/215
libsepol.scope_copy_callback: audioentropy: Duplicate declaration in module:
type/attribute entropyd_var_ru\
n_t (No such file or directory).
libsemanage.semanage_link_sandbox:
Past months I spent investigating `gold' - the new GNU linker
and how it now works with stock Fedora packages.
Result is `gold-rebuild', Bash script which automates `gold's
involvement in Mock buildroot. Tarball can be obtained here:
http://mnowak.fedorapeople.org/gold-rebuild/dist/
What it can
Hi,
what kind of karma threshold is set for the kernel?
The page in bodhi says it has a karma of 9, but if you count it, it's
13+ and 10-
And the kernel got -5 since it's pushed to stable. Shouldn't that one
stay out of stable for now?
mercurial and tortoise-hg need (generally) to be pushed in sync. They
are maintained by 2 different people. What are suggested ways to make sure
pushes are synchronized?
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
On Mon, Mar 08, 2010 at 08:09:43AM -0500, Neal Becker wrote:
mercurial and tortoise-hg need (generally) to be pushed in sync. They
are maintained by 2 different people. What are suggested ways to make sure
pushes are synchronized?
The maintainers should coordinate, and one of them should
Hello All!
I just found that many java-related packages have packaging issues,
and one of them draws my attention - explicit Requires: %{name} =
%{version}-%{release} in some *-javadoc packages. Since my java
experience is rather small, I would like to ask you, dear List,
whether %{name}-javadoc
On Mon, 2010-03-08 at 08:20 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
The maintainers should coordinate, and one of them should bundle both packages
into a single bodhi update. It's the only way to guarantee they get pushed at
the same time.
josh
They would need commit rights for both packages.
--
leigh scott wrote:
On Mon, 2010-03-08 at 08:20 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
The maintainers should coordinate, and one of them should bundle both
packages
into a single bodhi update. It's the only way to guarantee they get
pushed at the same time.
josh
They would need commit rights for
What is the new process to push an update to F-13 between alpha and beta? The
packages I have in mind are out of the set of critical packages.
--
Laurent Rineau
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/LaurentRineau
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
On 8 March 2010 11:44, Michal Nowak mno...@redhat.com wrote:
Past months I spent investigating `gold' - the new GNU linker
and how it now works with stock Fedora packages.
Using gold, I get:
/usr/bin/ld: --no-add-needed: unknown option
/usr/bin/ld: use the --help option for usage information
Le Lundi 8 Mars 2010 11:25:40, Ivana Hutarova Varekova a écrit :
For now in fedora there are 11 packages which contains language
mutations of man-pages (man-pages-{cs,da,de,es,fr,it,ja,ko,pl,ru,uk})
and man-pages package.
Only 2 of them (man-pages-es, man-pages-it) requires man
On Mon, Mar 08, 2010 at 08:28:29AM -0500, Neal Becker wrote:
leigh scott wrote:
On Mon, 2010-03-08 at 08:20 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
The maintainers should coordinate, and one of them should bundle both
packages
into a single bodhi update. It's the only way to guarantee they get
pushed at
On 03/07/2010 09:48 AM, Neal Becker wrote:
Updating : selinux-policy-targeted-3.6.32-92.fc12.noarch
64/215
libsepol.scope_copy_callback: audioentropy: Duplicate declaration in module:
type/attribute entropyd_var_ru\
n_t (No such file or directory).
libsemanage.semanage_link_sandbox:
Michal Nowak mno...@redhat.com writes:
Past months I spent investigating `gold' - the new GNU linker
and how it now works with stock Fedora packages.
[...]
Do your scripts provide some evidence of exciting speedups with gold?
- FChE
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
On Mon, Mar 08, 2010 at 09:24:29AM -0500, Frank Ch. Eigler wrote:
Michal Nowak mno...@redhat.com writes:
Past months I spent investigating `gold' - the new GNU linker
and how it now works with stock Fedora packages.
[...]
Do your scripts provide some evidence of exciting speedups with
On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 2:00 PM, Josh Boyer jwbo...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Mar 08, 2010 at 01:36:18PM +0100, Thomas Janssen wrote:
Hi,
what kind of karma threshold is set for the kernel?
The page in bodhi says it has a karma of 9, but if you count it, it's
13+ and 10-
And the kernel got -5
On Sat, 2010-03-06 at 19:32 +, Branched Report wrote:
Updated Packages:
avrdude-5.10-1.fc12
---
* Fri Feb 19 2010 Bart Vanbrabant bart.vanbrab...@zoeloelip.be - 5.10-1
- New upstream version. Several new devices and programmers supported. Some
bugfixes and a new
Josh Boyer wrote:
2) Karma after it goes to stable is good for informational purposes, but it
will not cause an update to get removed from Stable. We don't back out
updates
after that are pushed stable except in very rare cases.
I'll ask again:
Why does bodhi accept karma or comments
A segfaulty version of KDE filelight seems to have been pushed into
F13, F12 and (astonishingly) F11. Just filing a bug about that one ...
Rich.
--
Richard Jones, Virtualization Group, Red Hat http://people.redhat.com/~rjones
Read my programming blog: http://rwmj.wordpress.com
Fedora now
On Mon, Mar 08, 2010 at 08:55:34AM -0600, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
Josh Boyer wrote:
2) Karma after it goes to stable is good for informational purposes, but it
will not cause an update to get removed from Stable. We don't back out
updates
after that are pushed stable except in very rare
My F-13 system produces the following output from yum list extras:
Extra Packages
glibc.i686 2.11.90-14
installed
glibc-common.i686 2.11.90-14
installed
glibc-devel.i686 2.11.90-14
@updates-testing
glibc-headers.i686
On Mon, 8 Mar 2010, Quentin Armitage wrote:
The glibc packages (including nscd) were in updates-testing, but have
been obsoleted, and so 2.11.90-12 is now the current version again. What
is the mechanism for becoming aware that a package that has been
installed through updates-testing has
So I submitted a rebuild for libguestfs in F-13 (just now). This
was built against:
plymouth-core-libs 0.8.0-0.20100114.2.fc13
But the version of plymouth that I get when I install plymouth from
F-13 updates-testing on a local machine (after
'yum --enablerepo=\* clean all') is:
On Mon, Mar 08, 2010 at 03:29:37PM +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
So I submitted a rebuild for libguestfs in F-13 (just now). This
was built against:
plymouth-core-libs 0.8.0-0.20100114.2.fc13
Yes, that's what in dist-f13. You can view this with:
koji latest-pkg dist-f13 package
or for
On Mon, Mar 08, 2010 at 10:37:43AM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
The buildroots are populated from packages in the:
dist-f13
dist-f13-override
dist-f12-updates
tags. If a package isn't in one of those tags, it's not going to be in the
buildroot. If you need to build against a newer version
On Mon, 2010-03-08 at 10:27 +0100, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
Le Sam 6 mars 2010 20:04, Adam Williamson a écrit :
The numbers do surprise me, to be honest. As I write this, it's 34-8 -
that's over 80% - in favour of 'adventurous' updates.
Advanced users (those most likely to want a more
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=570979
--- Comment #3 from Iain Arnell iarn...@gmail.com 2010-03-08 11:07:52 EST ---
Sorry, all, I'm not trying to be difficult, but I
Compose started at Mon Mar 8 08:15:10 UTC 2010
Broken deps for i386
--
ale-0.9.0.3-2.fc12.i686 requires libMagickCore.so.2
autotrace-0.31.1-23.fc12.i686 requires libMagickCore.so.2
blahtexml-0.6-5.fc12.i686 requires
On Monday 08 March 2010, Daniel J Walsh wrote:
On 03/07/2010 09:48 AM, Neal Becker wrote:
Updating : selinux-policy-targeted-3.6.32-92.fc12.noarch
64/215
libsepol.scope_copy_callback: audioentropy: Duplicate declaration in
module: type/attribute entropyd_var_ru\
n_t (No such
Hi All,
I am looking at building a fedora package. I have been over guidelines
and taken a look at the build system. What I am not clear on is how I
maintain spec files for different distributions i.e., F12, F11, F10, or
even EPEL.
Do I have to branch and maintain each spec file separately
On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 5:50 PM, Matt Ford matt.f...@manchester.ac.uk wrote:
Hi All,
I am looking at building a fedora package. I have been over guidelines
and taken a look at the build system. What I am not clear on is how I
maintain spec files for different distributions i.e., F12, F11,
Le Lun 8 mars 2010 17:05, Adam Williamson a écrit :
I don't think that's an assertion you have any kind of evidence to
support. It's really quite sad that half the people who've responded to
the poll have done so by attempting to poke holes in it, as it happens
not to line up with what they
On 03/08/2010 11:05 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Mon, 2010-03-08 at 10:27 +0100, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
Le Sam 6 mars 2010 20:04, Adam Williamson a écrit :
The numbers do surprise me, to be honest. As I write this, it's 34-8 -
that's over 80% - in favour of 'adventurous' updates.
Advanced
On Sat, 2010-03-06 at 13:15 -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
On Sat, 06 Mar 2010 11:04:31 -0800
Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote:
...snip...
What do people make of this?
I'm no expert on polls/polling, but I suspect that many of the people
who are more interested in a 'stable/less
On Monday 08 March 2010, Peter Lemenkov wrote:
Hello All!
I just found that many java-related packages have packaging issues,
and one of them draws my attention - explicit Requires: %{name} =
%{version}-%{release} in some *-javadoc packages. Since my java
experience is rather small, I would
Start End Name
Thu 04-Mar Tue 09-Mar Stage Sync Alpha to Mirrors
Tue 09-Mar Tue 09-Mar Alpha Public Availability
Tue 09-Mar Tue 23-Mar Alpha Testing
Fri 12-Mar Fri 12-Mar Beta Blocker Meeting (F13Beta) #1
Tue 16-Mar Tue 16-Mar Software: Start Rebuild all translated
From package guideline
Requiring Base Package
Devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned
dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}. Usually, subpackages
other than -devel should also require the base package using a fully versioned
dependency.
On Mon, Mar 08, 2010 at 08:05:12AM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
If you think the poll is wrong - provide some data to disprove it.
Counteracting it with yet more assertions built on precisely no evidence
is not convincing.
The evidence that it's wrong is that it's a self-selected sample set.
I would like to transfer ownership of the libedit package to Kamil
Dudka (kdudka). I am a bit wary of PackageDB transferring not letting
me select the new owner. Could someone please take care of it or
advise what I need to do about this?
I do not want to remain as a co-maintainer.
Thanks,
On Mon, Mar 08, 2010 at 12:27:07PM +0200, Juha Tuomala wrote:
On Mon, 8 Mar 2010, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
Yes, it can get confusing. I think it was Kevin Kofler who suggested to
talk about feature releases vs. bugfix releases instead
to avoid confusion.
Again you can't cut bugfixes
On Mar 8, 2010, at 10:59 AM, Steve Traylen wrote:
It is true that the separate .spec files are maintained separately. What many
people try and do is maintain them as identical, at least at the start.
Have a look at:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/DistTag#Conditionals
of course
On Sat, 2010-03-06 at 20:07 +0100, Till Maas wrote:
On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 08:14:38AM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Fri, 2010-03-05 at 13:27 +0100, Till Maas wrote:
Especially it needs to be made sure that only bugs created prior to
adding F13 to RedHat Bugzilla or the branching of
On Mon, 8 Mar 2010 10:07:05 -0500, Josh wrote:
On Mon, Mar 08, 2010 at 08:55:34AM -0600, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
Josh Boyer wrote:
2) Karma after it goes to stable is good for informational purposes, but it
will not cause an update to get removed from Stable. We don't back out
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=569298
--- Comment #1 from Chris Weyl cw...@alumni.drew.edu 2010-03-08 13:26:07 EST
---
I'm trying to avoid EPEL at the moment, but I
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=569295
--- Comment #1 from Chris Weyl cw...@alumni.drew.edu 2010-03-08 13:26:08 EST
---
I'm trying to avoid EPEL at the moment, but I
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=569301
--- Comment #1 from Chris Weyl cw...@alumni.drew.edu 2010-03-08 13:26:07 EST
---
I'm trying to avoid EPEL at the moment, but I
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=569299
--- Comment #1 from Chris Weyl cw...@alumni.drew.edu 2010-03-08 13:26:08 EST
---
I'm trying to avoid EPEL at the moment, but I
On Monday 08 March 2010, Chen Lei wrote:
Requiring Base Package
Devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned
dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}. Usually,
subpackages other than -devel should also require the base package using a
fully versioned
Last time I looked at the admin logs for Fedoraforum i.e who's voted ,
there was at least 15 votes from Fedora project members.
On Mon, 2010-03-08 at 18:12 +0100, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
Adam, if you can't realise that the users most likely to haunt a support forum
are the people most likely
On Mon, 2010-03-08 at 10:26 -0500, Seth Vidal wrote:
On Mon, 8 Mar 2010, Quentin Armitage wrote:
The glibc packages (including nscd) were in updates-testing, but have
been obsoleted, and so 2.11.90-12 is now the current version again. What
is the mechanism for becoming aware that a
BJ Dierkes wrote:
On Mar 8, 2010, at 10:59 AM, Steve Traylen wrote:
It is true that the separate .spec files are maintained separately. What
many people try and do is maintain them as identical, at least at the
start. Have a look at:
Michael Schwendt wrote:
Nah. The same way you could consider all bodhi comments spam. If you
are the first commenter of a popular package, you receive lots of
notifications for all subsequent comments (where sometimes people
even use bodhi to argue about something).
Michael, how is posting:
On Sat, 2010-03-06 at 20:47 -0500, Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
Then make it 3 months, 4 months... Leave it in testing forever if you
get too many complaints. But make it available for those who want it.
This is not the purpose of updates-testing, it is not an alternative
update repo. It is there for
On Sat, 2010-03-06 at 22:17 -0500, Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
And as you obviously didn't finish reading my sentence, that is not
the only solution I proposed. Read again, there is a 0 additional repo
proposal too.
Having multiple package versions in a single repository is essentially
like having
Compose started at Mon Mar 8 09:15:17 UTC 2010
Broken deps for i386
--
blahtexml-0.6-5.fc12.i686 requires libxerces-c.so.28
doodle-0.6.7-5.fc12.i686 requires libextractor.so.1
easystroke-0.5.2-1.fc13.i686 requires
On 03/08/2010 06:28 AM, Rakesh Pandit wrote:
On 7 March 2010 20:18, Neal Becker wrote:
Updating : selinux-policy-targeted-3.6.32-92.fc12.noarch
64/215
libsepol.scope_copy_callback: audioentropy: Duplicate declaration in module:
type/attribute entropyd_var_ru\
n_t (No such file
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=571514
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=398603action=diff
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=398603action=edit
--
389-devel mailing list
389-de...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Hi, Fedora 12 was planned to have installation of packages without
users needing to enter root password.
How do I enable this feature via PolicyKit?
I read this article:
http://skvidal.wordpress.com/2009/11/18/polkit-and-package-kit-and-changing-settings/
but even after doing that it is still
On 03/08/2010 11:25 AM, Ivana Hutarova Varekova wrote:
For now in fedora there are 11 packages which contains language
mutations of man-pages (man-pages-{cs,da,de,es,fr,it,ja,ko,pl,ru,uk})
and man-pages package.
Only 2 of them (man-pages-es, man-pages-it) requires man package. I
On Mon, 2010-03-08 at 18:54 +, Quentin Armitage wrote:
On Mon, 2010-03-08 at 10:26 -0500, Seth Vidal wrote:
On Mon, 8 Mar 2010, Quentin Armitage wrote:
The glibc packages (including nscd) were in updates-testing, but have
been obsoleted, and so 2.11.90-12 is now the current
On 03/08/2010 02:47 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Sun, 2010-03-07 at 09:48 -0500, Neal Becker wrote:
Updating : selinux-policy-targeted-3.6.32-92.fc12.noarch
64/215
libsepol.scope_copy_callback: audioentropy: Duplicate declaration in module:
type/attribute entropyd_var_ru\
n_t (No
On Mon, 2010-03-08 at 20:51 +0100, Valent Turkovic wrote:
Hi, Fedora 12 was planned to have installation of packages without
users needing to enter root password.
How do I enable this feature via PolicyKit?
I read this article:
On Mon, 08 Mar 2010 13:29:23 -0600, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
u...@radiopresenter.me.uk (unauthenticated) - 2010-03-08 13:36:44 (karma: 0)
Error Type: class 'yum.Errors.RepoError' Error Value: Error getting
repository data for installed, repository not foundFile :
Michael Schwendt wrote:
There are just too many -devel packages and their dependencies to be ever
relevant to someone for multi-arch installs. Far more users install i686 on
64-bit CPUs, and I have doubts that x86_64 installation users do much
development with i686 packages. At most they
On Mon, 2010-03-08 at 12:14 -0500, Doug Ledford wrote:
On 03/08/2010 11:05 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Mon, 2010-03-08 at 10:27 +0100, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
Le Sam 6 mars 2010 20:04, Adam Williamson a écrit :
The numbers do surprise me, to be honest. As I write this, it's 34-8 -
Subject: subtree search fails to find items under a db containing
special characters
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=199923
This bug had been reopened due to the regression.
[Proposed Fix]
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=398612action=diff
On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 22:27:48 -0800
Dan Williams d...@redhat.com wrote:
I have taken over the maintainership from Robert, and the new
usb_modeswitch rpms are in rawhide now.
And F-13?
I'm pushing for F13 and F12 at least :) I usually end up getting the
bugs when modems don't
On 8 March 2010 19:47, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote:
Is there a sekrit PK mode you can use to get such output, does anyone
know? Maybe if I just launch it from a console...
No, but I could do such a thing if you file an enhancement bug.
Richard.
--
devel mailing list
On Sun, 2010-03-07 at 11:33 -0500, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
I can't find the wiki page documenting buildroot overrides so I can't
confirm this. I thought that releng was asking for the overrides to be
removed when the package was pushed to stable but I could be wrong.
On Sat, 2010-03-06 at 11:04 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
I thought to myself yesterday, 'what this long and fractious thread
about update policy *really* needs is some unscientific and
controversial numbers'. =) So, I ran a forum poll! Everyone loves those,
right?
Here it is:
On Mon, Mar 08, 2010 at 01:24:24PM -0800, Jesse Keating wrote:
On Sun, 2010-03-07 at 11:33 -0500, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
I can't find the wiki page documenting buildroot overrides so I can't
confirm this. I thought that releng was asking for the overrides to be
removed when the package was
On Mon, 2010-03-08 at 14:54 +, Quentin Armitage wrote:
The report lists 3 fc12 packages as updates for F-13. Doing a yum update
of avrdude shows the new version as 5.10-2.fc13 and not 5.10-1.fc12 as
listed. For man-pages-it, yum update lists 2.80-5.fc13 and not
2.80-5.fc12 as listed.
On Mon, 2010-03-08 at 21:18 +, Richard Hughes wrote:
On 8 March 2010 19:47, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote:
Is there a sekrit PK mode you can use to get such output, does anyone
know? Maybe if I just launch it from a console...
No, but I could do such a thing if you file an
On Mon, Mar 08, 2010 at 12:34:03PM -0500, Will Woods wrote:
Adam's poll results are valid *only* for Fedora users who:
a) Are members of the Fedora forum,
b) Enthusiasts/power-users to the degree that they would notice a new
threads/poll within a day of its posting, and
c) Hold a strong
For the 13th Release of Fedora, Goddard, the Fedora Marketing team
ran an open, community based process of slogan submissions, found at
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Release_slogan_SOP. That process
included guidelines for producing great slogans, and as a result of
our call, we received a large
This is the policy that I expect to be discussed during the Fesco
meeting tomorrow. This is entirely orthogonal to the ongoing discussions
regarding whether updates in stable releases should be expected to
provide features or purely bugfixes, and I don't see any conflict in
introducing it
On Mon, 2010-03-08 at 16:32 -0500, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
On Mon, Mar 08, 2010 at 01:24:24PM -0800, Jesse Keating wrote:
On Sun, 2010-03-07 at 11:33 -0500, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
I can't find the wiki page documenting buildroot overrides so I can't
confirm this. I thought that releng was
On Mon, Mar 08, 2010 at 07:33:37PM +, Branched Report wrote:
Compose started at Mon Mar 8 09:15:17 UTC 2010
Broken deps for i386
--
1:libguestfs-1.0.84-2.fc13.i686 requires /lib/libgthread-2.0.so.0.2303.0
On Mon, Mar 08, 2010 at 09:59:29PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
We assume the following axioms:
[..]
2) It is impossible to ensure that functionality will not be reduced
without sufficient testing.
Your axioms are obviously wrong. An update which simply bumped a
release number would have
On Mon, 2010-03-08 at 22:06 +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Mon, Mar 08, 2010 at 07:33:37PM +, Branched Report wrote:
Compose started at Mon Mar 8 09:15:17 UTC 2010
Broken deps for i386
--
On Mon, Mar 08, 2010 at 08:51:12AM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
On Mon, Mar 08, 2010 at 08:28:29AM -0500, Neal Becker wrote:
leigh scott wrote:
On Mon, 2010-03-08 at 08:20 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
The maintainers should coordinate, and one of them should bundle both
packages
into a
On Mon, Mar 08, 2010 at 22:09:25 +,
Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com wrote:
Your axioms are obviously wrong. An update which simply bumped a
release number would have the same functionality. Since you claim
these are axioms -- self-evident truths that form the basis for
further
On Mon, Mar 08, 2010 at 10:09:25PM +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Mon, Mar 08, 2010 at 09:59:29PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
We assume the following axioms:
[..]
2) It is impossible to ensure that functionality will not be reduced
without sufficient testing.
Your axioms are
Matthew Garrett wrote:
Proposal
The ability for maintainers to flag an update directly into the updates
repository will be disabled. Before being added to updates, the package
must receive a net karma of +3 in Bodhi.
Would that apply also to new packages being pushed as updates to
On Mon, Mar 08, 2010 at 10:17:01PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
2) It is impossible to ensure that functionality will not be reduced
without sufficient testing.
Your axioms are obviously wrong. An update which simply bumped a
release number would have the same functionality. Since
On Mon, 2010-03-08 at 22:09 +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Mon, Mar 08, 2010 at 09:59:29PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
We assume the following axioms:
[..]
2) It is impossible to ensure that functionality will not be reduced
without sufficient testing.
Your axioms are obviously
On Mon, 2010-03-08 at 22:09 +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Mon, Mar 08, 2010 at 09:59:29PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
We assume the following axioms:
[..]
2) It is impossible to ensure that functionality will not be reduced
without sufficient testing.
Your axioms are obviously
On Mon, Mar 08, 2010 at 09:59:29PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Before being added to updates, the package must receive a net karma of
+3 in Bodhi.
[...]
It is the expectation of Fesco that the majority of updates should
easily be able to garner the necessary karma in a minimal space of
W dniu 08.03.2010 22:59, Matthew Garrett pisze:
This is the policy that I expect to be discussed during the Fesco
meeting tomorrow. This is entirely orthogonal to the ongoing discussions
regarding whether updates in stable releases should be expected to
provide features or purely bugfixes,
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=570905
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=398636action=diff
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=398636action=edit
--
389-devel mailing list
389-de...@lists.fedoraproject.org
On Mon, 8 Mar 2010 21:59:29 +, Matthew wrote:
This is the policy that I expect to be discussed during the Fesco
meeting tomorrow. This is entirely orthogonal to the ongoing discussions
regarding whether updates in stable releases should be expected to
provide features or purely
On Mon, 2010-03-08 at 23:21 +0100, Sven Lankes wrote:
It is the expectation of Fesco that the majority of updates should
easily be able to garner the necessary karma in a minimal space of time.
I don't know what to say.
If Fesco is aiming at getting rid of all the pesky packagers
On Mon, Mar 08, 2010 at 05:23:34PM -0500, David Malcolm wrote:
[...]
Hope this is helpful; FWIW I think we need better automated testing
around our updates process.
OK OK, it was half a joke. I agree that automated testing is the way
forward here. Hopefully AutoQA will help here. And we
1 - 100 of 173 matches
Mail list logo
