-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 02/20/2014 08:19 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
>
> Just to bring this thread back to life, we're getting to a point
> where support for Django 1.6 is becoming more and more necessary.
> Is there an ETA on its inclusion in Rawhide or COPR?
>
Whah,
Summary of changes:
8b7289a... Updated to upstream version 1.47 (*)
(*) This commit already existed in another branch; no separate mail sent
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
perl-devel mailing list
perl-de...@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedo
Summary of changes:
8b7289a... Updated to upstream version 1.47 (*)
(*) This commit already existed in another branch; no separate mail sent
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
perl-devel mailing list
perl-de...@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedo
Hello,
My name is Sean Burke, but I also go by Seán de Búrca on some projects.
I have been a Linux user for a while now and started using Fedora a few
years ago. I have contributed to a number of FLOSS projects over the years,
though most of my work has been for the GNOME project in the form o
Summary of changes:
8b7289a... Updated to upstream version 1.47 (*)
(*) This commit already existed in another branch; no separate mail sent
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
perl-devel mailing list
perl-de...@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedo
On Thu, 2014-02-20 at 14:44 +, Colin Walters wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 7:27 AM, Florian Festi
> wrote:
> >
> > We are currently working on adding weak and rich dependencies to
> > upstream RPM. There are basically two parts:
> >
> Is someone signed up to do the necessary frontend wor
On 02/20/2014 03:44 PM, Colin Walters wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 7:27 AM, Florian Festi wrote:
>> We are currently working on adding weak and rich dependencies to
>> upstream RPM. There are basically two parts:
>
> Is someone signed up to do the necessary frontend work for this on the
> dn
Hello,
I've just built cogl 1.17.4 for rawhide, which includes a soname bump. I
am going to run a script to rebuild all consumers (38, list below), but
since it's quite a few packages, some of them might fail to rebuild, for
unrelated reasons. Help appreciated if one of these shows up in the
rawhi
On 02/20/2014 12:44 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
One app "with simple default choice and advanced options" effectively
*is* two apps, uncomfortably shoehorned into one UI. You get all the
disadvantages of complexity with none of the benefits of simplicity.
This is why it's a model most apps have
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 11/26/2013 08:41 AM, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 09:07:55AM +0100, Matthias Runge wrote:
>> Hey,
>>
>> recently, I saw a few requests to update python-django to
>> Django-1.6, the corresponding bug is [1].
>>
>> As there ar
perl-Language-Expr has broken dependencies in the rawhide tree:
On x86_64:
perl-Language-Expr-0.19-4.fc19.noarch requires
perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.16.2)
On i386:
perl-Language-Expr-0.19-4.fc19.noarch requires
perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.16.2)
On armhfp:
perl-Language-Expr-0.19-4.
perl-Catalyst-Controller-HTML-FormFu has broken dependencies in the rawhide
tree:
On x86_64:
perl-Catalyst-Controller-HTML-FormFu-0.09004-4.fc20.noarch requires
perl(HTML::FormFu::MultiForm)
On i386:
perl-Catalyst-Controller-HTML-FormFu-0.09004-4.fc20.noarch requires
perl(HTML:
mojomojo has broken dependencies in the rawhide tree:
On x86_64:
mojomojo-1.10-1.fc20.noarch requires
perl(HTML::FormFu::Element::reCAPTCHA)
On i386:
mojomojo-1.10-1.fc20.noarch requires
perl(HTML::FormFu::Element::reCAPTCHA)
On armhfp:
mojomojo-1.10-1.fc20.noarch requir
On Thu, 20 Feb 2014 17:28:02 +0100, Marcin Juszkiewicz wrote:
> W dniu 20.02.2014 17:16, Vivek Goyal pisze:
>
> > So instead of increasing release number on released branches, why don't
> > we append additional number after dist and bump that up in released
> > branch. So FC21 releases will look
On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 05:39:17PM +0100, Mikolaj Izdebski wrote:
> On 02/20/2014 05:28 PM, Marcin Juszkiewicz wrote:
> > W dniu 20.02.2014 17:16, Vivek Goyal pisze:
> >
> >> So instead of increasing release number on released branches, why don't
> >> we append additional number after dist and bum
On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 05:28:02PM +0100, Marcin Juszkiewicz wrote:
> W dniu 20.02.2014 17:16, Vivek Goyal pisze:
>
> > So instead of increasing release number on released branches, why don't
> > we append additional number after dist and bump that up in released
> > branch. So FC21 releases will
On 20 February 2014 17:44, Adam Williamson wrote:
> You get all the disadvantages of complexity with none of the benefits of
> simplicity.
"Jack of all trades, master of none".
Richard
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fe
On Thu, 20 Feb 2014 07:53:01 -0500
Josh Boyer wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 2:57 PM, Tomas Mraz wrote:
> > * Open floor (t8m, 19:45:44)
> > * AGREED: FESCo expects the Tech specs/docs from working groups by
> > March 3rd at the latest (+7, -0, 0:0) (t8m, 19:50:38)
> > * ACTION: t8m
On Thu, 2014-02-20 at 12:01 -0500, Przemek Klosowski wrote:
> On 02/19/2014 01:16 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > On Sun, 2014-02-16 at 14:38 +, Richard Hughes wrote:
> >> On 14 February 2014 21:43, Przemek Klosowski
> >> wrote:
> >>> If we are providing a next-generation UI for installing, to
On 02/19/2014 01:16 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Sun, 2014-02-16 at 14:38 +, Richard Hughes wrote:
On 14 February 2014 21:43, Przemek Klosowski wrote:
If we are providing a next-generation UI for installing, to replace yum
That's not what we're doing.
To expand a bit: insofar as Softwar
On 02/20/2014 05:28 PM, Marcin Juszkiewicz wrote:
> W dniu 20.02.2014 17:16, Vivek Goyal pisze:
>
>> So instead of increasing release number on released branches, why don't
>> we append additional number after dist and bump that up in released
>> branch. So FC21 releases will look like.
>>
>> ke
On 02/20/2014 05:16 PM, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> So instead of increasing release number on released branches, why don't
> we append additional number after dist and bump that up in released
> branch. So FC21 releases will look like.
>
> kexec-tools-2.0.4-24.fc21.1
> kexec-tools-2.0.4-24.fc21.2
>
W dniu 20.02.2014 17:16, Vivek Goyal pisze:
> So instead of increasing release number on released branches, why don't
> we append additional number after dist and bump that up in released
> branch. So FC21 releases will look like.
>
> kexec-tools-2.0.4-24.fc21.1
> kexec-tools-2.0.4-24.fc21.2
Hi All,
We are trying to sort out how to do kexec-tools package version, release
number management in fedora across various branches, hence this query.
I quickly went through following.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Package_Naming_and_Versioning_Guidelines
So far we
I'm trying to do a build on koji and ran into an error during the mock
buildroot setup ( http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6488038
).
I posted previously on the Fedora devel mailing list but haven't figured it
out yet (
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2014-February
On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 7:27 AM, Florian Festi
wrote:
We are currently working on adding weak and rich dependencies to
upstream RPM. There are basically two parts:
Is someone signed up to do the necessary frontend work for this on the
dnf/yum side? If we're allowing choice of "A | B" like th
On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 06:39:38AM +, Sérgio Basto wrote:
> > The answer appears to be because dpkg thinks DEB_BUILD_ARCH and
> > DEB_HOST_ARCH are different for us (arm versus armel respectively.) and
> > this means it doesn't run dh_auto_test properly.
> >
> > The reason for that is more com
On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 2:57 PM, Tomas Mraz wrote:
> * Open floor (t8m, 19:45:44)
> * AGREED: FESCo expects the Tech specs/docs from working groups by
> March 3rd at the latest (+7, -0, 0:0) (t8m, 19:50:38)
> * ACTION: t8m will update the weekly reports ticket with this request
> (t8
On 02/20/2014 11:43 AM, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
Hi!
Matthias presented on Desktop list [1] initial Technical Specification
document for Workstation product [2]. I expect other WGs will come with
similar document soon to fulfil FESCo request. But the discussion on
desktop list steered towards what
Original Message
Subject: [Rpm-maint] Heads up: Weak and rich dependencies in RPM
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2014 13:12:43 +0100
From: Florian Festi
To: rpm-ma...@lists.rpm.org, rpm-l...@lists.rpm.org
Hi!
We are currently working on adding weak and rich dependencies to
upstream RPM. The
On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 06:18:30PM +0100, Juerg Haefliger wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm trying to figure out if it makes sense to rename the cloud-utils
> (sub-)package for EPEL7 and F21.
>
> Upstream (Ubuntu) used to have a single package named cloud-utils which we
> decided to split up into two packages
Hi!
Matthias presented on Desktop list [1] initial Technical Specification
document for Workstation product [2]. I expect other WGs will come with
similar document soon to fulfil FESCo request. But the discussion on
desktop list steered towards what should be in Base and what in products
and if bo
32 matches
Mail list logo
