On Tue, 2010-07-27 at 11:05 -0400, Tom spot Callaway wrote:
On 07/27/2010 10:48 AM, M A Young wrote:
On Tue, 27 Jul 2010, David Malcolm wrote:
abrt
cc1plus: warnings being treated as errors
CCApplet.cpp: In member function 'void CApplet::Disable(const char*)':
CCApplet.cpp:364:72:
Adam Williamson (awill...@redhat.com) said:
The 'not separating the scripts into a separate subpackage' bit.
Ah. I thought the point of separating them wasn't to allow for multiple
init systems, but because our current guidance was to use sysvinit
scripts by default, not upstart scripts;
On Tue, 2010-07-27 at 10:16 -0400, David Malcolm wrote:
libgpod
Working on this
DONE
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Chen Lei (supercyp...@gmail.com) said:
have some patent issues. Are there any legal guys or developers who
are familiar with libva can help to clarify the patent issues in
libva?
The Review Request is here and waits for a legal review for almost one year:
On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 12:55:17AM -0700, Matt McCutchen wrote:
The next sentence says, /bin contains commands that may be used by both
the system administrator and by users, but which are required when no
other filesystems are mounted (e.g. in single user mode). systemd
qualifies on both
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 7/26/10 5:05 PM, Benjamin Kosnik wrote:
Hey.
The boost maintainers are planning to update the boost versions
to the current release (1.44.0) in rawhide for F14. This is in keeping
with the general plan to sync with boost every six months
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=611015
--- Comment #5 from Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com 2010-07-27 13:39:42 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #4)
(In reply to comment #2)
On Tuesday 27 July 2010, Przemek Klosowski wrote:
On 07/26/2010 07:25 PM, M A Young wrote:
On Mon, 26 Jul 2010, Tom spot Callaway wrote:
You're going to need to include all applicable license texts, sorry.
I have commited a spec file that puts all the COPYING and LICENSE files
into a
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
DeviceKit or udisks backend?
libudev / udisks / upower actually. The original DeviceKit is dead. The name
for the Solid backend stuck, it should probably be renamed.
Kevin Kofler
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
On 07/24/2010 01:09 PM, Horst H. von Brand wrote:
Jonathan MERCIERbioinfornat...@gmail.com wrote:
If we could swap out old C compilers for a more generic LLVM compiler
for core components like the kernel,
Won't happen until clang generates much better code than GCC; in the
meanwhile it'll
On Tue, 2010-07-27 at 11:34 -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote:
Adam Williamson (awill...@redhat.com) said:
The 'not separating the scripts into a separate subpackage' bit.
Ah. I thought the point of separating them wasn't to allow for multiple
init systems, but because our current guidance
Am 27.07.2010 03:27, schrieb David Malcolm:
Current status: 114 failing builds
http://dmalcolm.fedorapeople.org/python-packaging/failures-2010-07-26-02.html
See also the notes on:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/Python_2.7#Current_status
Many of these appear to be pre-existing
Do you have a list of packages which will need to be rebuilt? This is
the last day before we branch, and with the dist-git outage there will
be a short time to fix things before the Alpha freeze. Is anything in
the critpath dependent upon boost, or in the primary spins?
here's the old
On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 02:39:55PM -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote:
Dave Jones (da...@redhat.com) said:
of those that it does open(),.. Is there seriously a use-case for someone
wanting
lvm partitioned /dev/ram disks ? or /dev/loop ?
I would assume that's for testing.
point being
Hi,
Are we skipping Firefox 4 for Fedora 14? Beta 2 has been released
recently and I am wondering if we can go with it if it fits into the
schedule. There are dozens of new features including WebM support that
would be nice to have.
Rahul
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Doesn't our version already support WebM?
On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 5:53 PM, Rahul Sundaram methe...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
Are we skipping Firefox 4 for Fedora 14? Beta 2 has been released
recently and I am wondering if we can go with it if it fits into the
schedule. There are dozens of new
On Tue, 27 Jul 2010, Athmane Madjoudj wrote:
On 07/27/2010 10:53 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Hi,
Are we skipping Firefox 4 for Fedora 14? Beta 2 has been released
recently and I am wondering if we can go with it if it fits into the
schedule. There are dozens of new features including
On 07/28/2010 03:38 AM, Mike McGrath wrote:
-1 didn't the last time we started using a pre-release from Mozilla turn
out pretty bad for us?
More specifics please. Which version of Firefox and what problems?
Rahul
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
On 07/27/2010 11:08 PM, Mike McGrath wrote:
On Tue, 27 Jul 2010, Athmane Madjoudj wrote:
On 07/27/2010 10:53 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Hi,
Are we skipping Firefox 4 for Fedora 14? Beta 2 has been released
recently and I am wondering if we can go with it if it fits into the
schedule.
On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 10:35:50PM +0200, Matthias Runge wrote:
Sadly, my name (for django-lint) is on the list. I've seen a rebuild of
django-lint produced an error. Of course, fixed it, but the fix was not
taken in account for the above list.
What can I do to correct this situation, esp.
F11 or F12 had a beta version of firefox
spot's chromium builds do support webm, it works great :)
On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 6:11 PM, Athmane Madjoudj athma...@gmail.com wrote:
On 07/27/2010 11:08 PM, Mike McGrath wrote:
On Tue, 27 Jul 2010, Athmane Madjoudj wrote:
On 07/27/2010 10:53 PM,
Rahul Sundaram writes:
On 07/28/2010 03:33 AM, Brandon Lozza wrote:
Doesn't our version already support WebM?
Nope. We have updated Gstreamer and WebKit-Gtk in Fedora 13 and 12 for
WebM support bringing it to Epiphany and Midori users and I assume
Spot's Chromium repo users also have
2010/7/28 Filipe Rosset rosset.fil...@gmail.com:
We was delayed in F-12 (two weeks) and in F-13 (two weeks), probably
we'll have a final version for Firefox 4 before or a bit after we
release F-14. Another thing, we can test a lot and assist in upstream
during our testing phase.
It's +1 for
2010/7/23 Marcela Mašláňová mmasl...@redhat.com:
Hello,
I'd like to sent Draft for packaging guidelines for review. There were
added some changes a long time ago and it would be nice to have it
official. If there won't be any comments, I'll sent it at the end of
next week to comitee.
The
Author: tremble
Update of /cvs/pkgs/rpms/perl-namespace-clean/EL-6
In directory cvs01.phx2.fedoraproject.org:/tmp/cvs-serv31599
Modified Files:
.cvsignore perl-namespace-clean.spec sources
Log Message:
Update from rawhide prior to initial build
Index: .cvsignore
On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 03:46:25PM +0200, Marcela Mašláňová wrote:
The draft: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDraft:Perl
It would be great to have a review from someone who has English as first
language.
What about perl module versioning? There is well-known schism in CPAN
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=617967
--- Comment #6 from Petr Sabata psab...@redhat.com 2010-07-27 04:24:25 EDT ---
IO::Compress 2.030 built.
--
Configure bugmail:
On 27/07/10 07:50, Iain Arnell wrote:
Since we no longer have perl version numbers in @INC, I think the
whole Directory Ownership section should be updated to reflect the
current situation. With a few simple examples. Maybe something like:
In general, perl's hierarchical naming convention for
perl-Data-Alias has broken dependencies in the rawhide tree:
On x86_64:
perl-Data-Alias-1.07-6.fc13.x86_64 requires perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.10.1)
On i386:
perl-Data-Alias-1.07-6.fc13.i686 requires perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.10.1)
Please resolve this as soon as possible.
--
Fedora
2010/7/27 Marcela Mašláňová mmasl...@redhat.com:
On 07/27/2010 08:50 AM, Iain Arnell wrote:
2010/7/23 Marcela Mašláňová mmasl...@redhat.com:
Hello,
I'd like to sent Draft for packaging guidelines for review. There were
added some changes a long time ago and it would be nice to have it
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=617967
--- Comment #7 from Paul Howarth p...@city-fan.org 2010-07-27 14:17:13 EDT ---
IO::Compress::Lzma now built; you can now prepare
On 07/27/2010 06:49 PM, Iain Arnell wrote:
Maybe we should also consider splitting perl-sig mailing list into
separate perl-sig-bug-and-cvs-spam and a real discussion list.
Please no.
a) We already have way too many lists in Fedora.
b) perl-sig members already receive many duplicate mails
* Ralf Corsepius [28/07/2010 07:25] :
Please no.
+1
Having a single address where everything perl related gets sent to is a
valuable asset. I'ld rather we not lose that.
Emmanuel
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
perl-devel mailing list
33 matches
Mail list logo
