On Tue, 25 Feb 2014 03:34:28 +
Álvaro Castillo net...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
Hello everybody,
Just that. Why is not included JFS on Anaconda?
At the moment there is a thread on Desktop what anaconda should do
for a workstation:
On Tue, 25 Feb 2014 03:34:28 +
Álvaro Castillo net...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
Could be include JFS into Anaconda to next release? What's your
opinion about JFS?
Apology wrong thread, in prior email:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/desktop/2014-February/009195.html
___
Regards
Richard Fearn richardfe...@gmail.com writes:
Slightly off-topic: fedora-review is telling packagers NOT to add
Requires: jpackage-utils to javadoc subpackages because that is added
automatically, but I see no mention of this on
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java.
Guidelines state
Hi guys,
I have identified 551 packages on the Fedora 20 source DVD which are missing a
%check section in their spec files but are very likely to have a test suite. See
https://github.com/atodorov/fedora-scripts/blob/master/sample-data/fedora-20/srpms-with-tests-WITHOUT-check-in-fedora-20-dvd
On 02/25/2014 11:45 AM, Alexander Todorov wrote:
Hi guys,
I have identified 551 packages on the Fedora 20 source DVD which are
missing a %check section in their spec files but are very likely to have
a test suite. See
On 02/24/2014 08:57 PM, drago01 wrote:
On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 3:56 PM, Marcela Mašláňová mmasl...@redhat.com wrote:
WG meeting will be at 16:00 UTC in #fedora-meeting on Freenode.
== Topic ==
# additional repository
fedora-{incubator,ugly}
* better name than ugly based on content of repo
*
- Original Message -
On 02/19/2014 08:57 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
On Tue, 25 Feb 2014 12:45:11 +0200, Alexander Todorov wrote:
Hi guys,
I have identified 551 packages on the Fedora 20 source DVD which are missing
a
%check section in their spec files but are very likely to have a test suite.
See
На 25.02.2014 13:40, Michael Schwendt написа:
On Tue, 25 Feb 2014 12:45:11 +0200, Alexander Todorov wrote:
Hi guys,
I have identified 551 packages on the Fedora 20 source DVD which are missing a
%check section in their spec files but are very likely to have a test suite. See
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 11:00 AM, Marcela Mašláňová mmasl...@redhat.com wrote:
On 02/24/2014 08:57 PM, drago01 wrote:
On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 3:56 PM, Marcela Mašláňová mmasl...@redhat.com
wrote:
WG meeting will be at 16:00 UTC in #fedora-meeting on Freenode.
== Topic ==
# additional
On Tue, 25 Feb 2014 13:47:01 +0200, Alexander Todorov wrote:
https://github.com/atodorov/fedora-scripts/blob/master/sample-data/fedora-20/srpms-with-tests-WITHOUT-check-in-fedora-20-dvd
Could you add a short classifier to each src.rpm name, which sums up why
your checker believes there
On Tue, 2014-02-25 at 03:34 +, Álvaro Castillo wrote:
Could be include JFS into Anaconda to next release? What's your
opinion about JFS?
What benefit would be provided by offering a filesystem that we have
(afaik) zero people supporting?
Note one: choice for its own sake is not a benefit.
On Tue, 2014-02-25 at 12:45 +0200, Alexander Todorov wrote:
1) Do we consider this a bug and if yes what priority do you give it? From
last
week discussions it looks like most people prefer to have tests executed in
%check.
I don't consider %check to be an appropriate way to run tests, so
- Original Message -
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
tl;dr: FESCo needs to know what is going to need extra time to deliver
Fedora.next in the Fedora 21 cycle.
Now that the Fedora.next product PRDs have been approved, the next
phase is to plan our execution. First
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 3:02 PM, Jaroslav Reznik jrez...@redhat.com wrote:
We do not have a formal process in place for organizing such planning
efforts, but as a provisional one, we'd like to take the following steps:
We do have a formal process in place - Change process. I'm going to
- Original Message -
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 3:02 PM, Jaroslav Reznik jrez...@redhat.com wrote:
We do not have a formal process in place for organizing such planning
efforts, but as a provisional one, we'd like to take the following steps:
We do have a formal process in place -
На 25.02.2014 13:57, Michael Schwendt написа:
On Tue, 25 Feb 2014 13:47:01 +0200, Alexander Todorov wrote:
https://github.com/atodorov/fedora-scripts/blob/master/sample-data/fedora-20/srpms-with-tests-WITHOUT-check-in-fedora-20-dvd
Could you add a short classifier to each src.rpm name,
On 02/25/2014 07:24 AM, thierry bordaz wrote:
On 02/24/2014 10:47 PM, Noriko Hosoi wrote:
Rich Megginson wrote:
On 02/24/2014 09:00 AM, thierry bordaz wrote:
Hello,
IPA team filled this ticket
https://fedorahosted.org/389/ticket/47553.
It requires an ACI improvement so that
2014-02-24 5:16 GMT+01:00 Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at:
It is very obvious that autokarma is NOT working. It is causing way more
breakage than direct stable pushes (or manual pushes with too little
karma) ever caused. If direct stable pushes (or manual pushes with too
little karma)
On 02/24/2014 11:35 PM, Rich Megginson wrote:
On 02/24/2014 02:47 PM, Noriko Hosoi wrote:
Rich Megginson wrote:
On 02/24/2014 09:00 AM, thierry bordaz wrote:
Hello,
IPA team filled this ticket
https://fedorahosted.org/389/ticket/47553.
It requires an ACI improvement so that
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 08:50:18AM -0500, Adam Jackson wrote:
On Tue, 2014-02-25 at 12:45 +0200, Alexander Todorov wrote:
1) Do we consider this a bug and if yes what priority do you give it? From
last
week discussions it looks like most people prefer to have tests executed in
On 02/25/2014 07:42 AM, thierry bordaz wrote:
On 02/25/2014 03:34 PM, Rich Megginson wrote:
On 02/25/2014 07:24 AM, thierry bordaz wrote:
On 02/24/2014 10:47 PM, Noriko Hosoi wrote:
Rich Megginson wrote:
On 02/24/2014 09:00 AM, thierry bordaz wrote:
Hello,
IPA team filled this ticket
On Tue, 2014-02-25 at 15:45 +0100, Matthias Runge wrote:
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 08:50:18AM -0500, Adam Jackson wrote:
This is an argument against %check, not against testing in general. We
should be relying on rpmbuild less, not more. rpm doesn't even have
anything like Requires(check),
Hello,
Ticket https://fedorahosted.org/389/ticket/47553, is a 389-ds
enhancement to allow a finer access control during a MODDN (new
superior) operation. The use case being to allow/deny a bound user
to move an entry from one specified part of the DIT to an other part.
This
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 10:01:06AM -0500, Adam Jackson wrote:
You are failing to distinguish between pushed to package git and
pushed to an installable repository, which is a mistake.
I'm distinguishing:
1. package compiles successfully
2. rpmbuild manages to include all files into an rpm
On Tue, 25 Feb 2014 16:32:37 +0200, Alexander Todorov wrote:
Well, your check may be too simplified. I've had a look at
/mnt/fedora/l/libetpan-1.1-7.fc20.src.rpm
and it contains a tests subdir with a few test programs, but no test-suite
to run automatically.
I said it didn't
On 02/25/2014 04:45 PM, Rich Megginson wrote:
On 02/25/2014 08:28 AM, thierry bordaz wrote:
On 02/25/2014 04:17 PM, Rich Megginson wrote:
On 02/25/2014 08:14 AM, thierry bordaz wrote:
On 02/25/2014 03:46 PM, Rich Megginson wrote:
On 02/25/2014 07:42 AM, thierry bordaz wrote:
On 02/25/2014
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 10:59 AM, Stanislav Ochotnicky
sochotni...@redhat.com wrote:
Since javadoc subpackages put files in /usr/share/javadoc they must
require package that provides this directory.
In my opinion all javadocs should be crosslinked with local JDK's
javadocs (+ others as
#fedora-meeting: Env and Stacks (2014-02-25)
Meeting started by mmaslano at 16:02:04 UTC. The full logs are available
at
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 2:50 PM, Adam Jackson a...@redhat.com wrote:
On Tue, 2014-02-25 at 12:45 +0200, Alexander Todorov wrote:
1) Do we consider this a bug and if yes what priority do you give it? From
last
week discussions it looks like most people prefer to have tests executed in
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 12:45:11PM +0200, Alexander Todorov wrote:
Hi guys,
I have identified 551 packages on the Fedora 20 source DVD which are
missing a %check section in their spec files but are very likely to
have a test suite. See
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
So, I have an interesting problem to solve. I have a package that
installs a web application[1] that is run automatically with
httpd.service. The package can be deployed for one or more sites on
the system (which may be different apache virtual hosts
On Tue, 25.02.14 14:55, Stephen Gallagher (sgall...@redhat.com) wrote:
There are actually two pieces to this that I'd like to see (and
hopefully have someone tell me are already possible):
1. The ability to add new ExecStartPre commands to the httpd service
when installing new sites.
Hi!
As FESCo agreed on the last meeting to continue with current Change
process as is for Fedora 21 [1] and work on final schedule is ongoing
(see Stephan Gallagher's mail earlier), please participate and
submit your Change proposals as soon as possible.
With Fedora.next in mind, I'd like to ask
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 02/25/2014 03:07 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Tue, 25.02.14 14:55, Stephen Gallagher (sgall...@redhat.com)
wrote:
There are actually two pieces to this that I'd like to see (and
hopefully have someone tell me are already possible):
1.
On Tue, 25.02.14 15:49, Stephen Gallagher (sgall...@redhat.com) wrote:
In the specific case I'm looking at, I'm not (necessarily) talking
about separate httpd instances. Rather, I'm talking about either
different virtual hosts or different paths on the same virtual host.
For example, I
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 03:45:51PM +0100, Matthias Runge wrote:
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 08:50:18AM -0500, Adam Jackson wrote:
On Tue, 2014-02-25 at 12:45 +0200, Alexander Todorov wrote:
1) Do we consider this a bug and if yes what priority do you give it?
From last
week
On Tue, 2014-02-25 at 22:38 +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 03:45:51PM +0100, Matthias Runge wrote:
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 08:50:18AM -0500, Adam Jackson wrote:
On Tue, 2014-02-25 at 12:45 +0200, Alexander Todorov wrote:
1) Do we consider this a bug and if
On Tue, 2014-02-25 at 22:41 +0100, Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Tue, 25.02.14 15:49, Stephen Gallagher (sgall...@redhat.com) wrote:
In the specific case I'm looking at, I'm not (necessarily) talking
about separate httpd instances. Rather, I'm talking about either
different virtual hosts
On 25 February 2014 16:04, Simo Sorce s...@redhat.com wrote:
On Tue, 2014-02-25 at 22:41 +0100, Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Tue, 25.02.14 15:49, Stephen Gallagher (sgall...@redhat.com) wrote:
In the specific case I'm looking at, I'm not (necessarily) talking
about separate httpd
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 2:38 PM, Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com wrote:
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 03:45:51PM +0100, Matthias Runge wrote:
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 08:50:18AM -0500, Adam Jackson wrote:
On Tue, 2014-02-25 at 12:45 +0200, Alexander Todorov wrote:
1) Do we consider this a
Following is the list of topics that will be discussed in the FESCo
meeting Wednesday at 18:00UTC in #fedora-meeting on irc.freenode.net.
To convert UTC to your local time, take a look at
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/UTCHowto
or run:
date -d '2014-02-26 18:00 UTC'
Links to all tickets
On Tue, 2014-02-25 at 18:35 -0800, Andrew Lutomirski wrote:
Just to mention: there are probably many packages where the equivalent
of %check can't be run without access to a source tree, so Taskotron
can't usefully replace %check. I maintain a package like that.
How do you get from that
On Tue, 2014-02-25 at 20:13 -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
If you would like to add something to this agenda, you can reply to
this e-mail, file a new ticket at https://fedorahosted.org/fesco,
e-mail me directly, or bring it up at the end of the meeting, during
the open floor topic. Note that added
On Wed, 26 Feb 2014 11:56:43 +0800
Mathieu Bridon boche...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Tue, 2014-02-25 at 20:13 -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
If you would like to add something to this agenda, you can reply to
this e-mail, file a new ticket at https://fedorahosted.org/fesco,
e-mail me
On Tuesday 25 February 2014 22:41:29 Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Tue, 25.02.14 15:49, Stephen Gallagher (sgall...@redhat.com) wrote:
For example, I might have
http://reviews.myserver.com/systemd-reviews/
http://reviews.myserver.com/networkmanager-reviews/
perl-PDL has broken dependencies in the epel-7 tree:
On ppc64:
perl-PDL-2.7.0-2.el7.1.ppc64 requires perl(PDL::Slatec)
Please resolve this as soon as possible.
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
perl-devel mailing list
A file has been added to the lookaside cache for perl-Pod-Perldoc:
86bf97d373c4fc2c85199bce8cc1ce43 Pod-Perldoc-3.23.tar.gz
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
perl-devel mailing list
perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
commit 5e6b082f0d932a1fbb747e1601e7e501b18bd57d
Author: Petr Písař ppi...@redhat.com
Date: Tue Feb 25 10:05:29 2014 +0100
3.23 bump
.gitignore|1 +
perl-Pod-Perldoc.spec | 18 +++---
sources |2 +-
3 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 8
A file has been added to the lookaside cache for perl-Socket6:
e6c40d662b1fc5ffd436b7f50daa1f04 Socket6-0.25.tar.gz
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
perl-devel mailing list
perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
commit c328ee49a9e67da47f9511fef0400ef01d0fa4b6
Author: Petr Šabata con...@redhat.com
Date: Tue Feb 25 10:57:09 2014 +0100
0.25 bump
- Modernize the spec somewhat
.gitignore|1 +
perl-Socket6.spec | 30 --
sources |2 +-
3
Summary of changes:
c328ee4... 0.25 bump (*)
(*) 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-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Summary of changes:
37e739c... Produce manual pages (*)
35d4071... Perl 5.18 rebuild (*)
c4f3693... - Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_20_Mass (*)
c328ee4... 0.25 bump (*)
(*) This commit already existed in another branch; no separate mail sent
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
A file has been added to the lookaside cache for perl-YAML-Tiny:
9e0067102d0452049f489e0822091d39 YAML-Tiny-1.61.tar.gz
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
perl-devel mailing list
perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
commit bc77211fb1b8ea960e57ef0aecf38466513f3046
Author: Paul Howarth p...@city-fan.org
Date: Tue Feb 25 10:57:03 2014 +
Update to 1.61
- New upstream release 1.61
- Fixed a test for VMS (CPAN RT#93297)
perl-YAML-Tiny.spec |8 ++--
sources |2 +-
The lightweight tag 'perl-YAML-Tiny-1.61-1.fc21' was created pointing to:
bc77211... Update to 1.61
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
perl-devel mailing list
perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/perl-devel
A file has been added to the lookaside cache for perl-CPAN-Meta-YAML:
bdee91cb71ddc7ed1a30abea611be9bb CPAN-Meta-YAML-0.012.tar.gz
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
perl-devel mailing list
perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
commit 942485f83d9be69078704a06d69c75d1bf9fbd03
Author: Paul Howarth p...@city-fan.org
Date: Tue Feb 25 11:20:05 2014 +
Update to 0.012
- New upstream release 0.012:
- Generated from ETHER/YAML-Tiny-1.61.tar.gz
perl-CPAN-Meta-YAML.spec |6 +-
sources
The lightweight tag 'perl-CPAN-Meta-YAML-0.012-1.fc21' was created pointing to:
942485f... Update to 0.012
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
perl-devel mailing list
perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1066374
--- Comment #1 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org ---
perl-Socket6-0.25-1.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-Socket6-0.25-1.fc20
--
You are receiving this mail
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1066374
--- Comment #2 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org ---
perl-Socket6-0.25-1.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-Socket6-0.25-1.fc19
--
You are receiving this mail
A file has been added to the lookaside cache for perl-Text-CSV_XS:
f70d7860374155b8e6693e0858758937 Text-CSV_XS-1.04.tgz
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
perl-devel mailing list
perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
commit 0ba9a24f3caef41aadc0bec3f94b3adaf5148cf1
Author: Petr Šabata con...@redhat.com
Date: Tue Feb 25 12:59:14 2014 +0100
1.04 bump
.gitignore|1 +
perl-Text-CSV_XS.spec |6 +-
sources |2 +-
3 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
---
A file has been added to the lookaside cache for perl-Net-GitHub:
cafc46564d625bc89fb3bfcc9093520f Net-GitHub-0.56.tar.gz
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
perl-devel mailing list
perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
commit 3b6fae0d0fb7ff951be8b0e2bfc7968ca04826cd
Author: Petr Šabata con...@redhat.com
Date: Tue Feb 25 13:12:42 2014 +0100
0.56 bump
.gitignore |1 +
perl-Net-GitHub.spec |6 +-
sources |2 +-
3 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
---
diff
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1062229
Petr Šabata psab...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
Fixed In
Summary of changes:
aa25e92... 0.54 bump (*)
de61f8d... 0.55 bump, no code changes (*)
3b6fae0... 0.56 bump (*)
(*) 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
Summary of changes:
e09fc3e... - Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_20_Mass (*)
3bd36cb... Perl 5.18 rebuild (*)
ff127e8... 0.53 bump (*)
aa25e92... 0.54 bump (*)
de61f8d... 0.55 bump, no code changes (*)
3b6fae0... 0.56 bump (*)
(*) This commit already existed in
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1062886
--- Comment #1 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org ---
perl-Net-GitHub-0.56-1.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-Net-GitHub-0.56-1.fc20
--
You are receiving this
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1062886
--- Comment #2 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org ---
perl-Net-GitHub-0.56-1.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-Net-GitHub-0.56-1.fc19
--
You are receiving this
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
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-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
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1069717
Bug ID: 1069717
Summary: unresolved dependencies on epel6 testing
Product: Fedora EPEL
Version: el6
Component: perl-Finance-Quote
Assignee: nott...@splat.cc
Reporter:
commit 4864a45a72317122a3467aace3d1b4e5f7e3aae7
Author: Bill Nottingham nott...@redhat.com
Date: Tue Feb 25 10:11:35 2014 -0500
Fix requires (#1069717)
FQ-requires.patch | 25 +
perl-Finance-Quote.spec |7 ++-
2 files changed, 31 insertions(+), 1
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1069717
--- Comment #1 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org ---
perl-Finance-Quote-1.20-3.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL
6.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2014-0603/perl-Finance-Quote-1.20-3.el6
Summary of changes:
aca9001... Initial import (perl-MetaCPAN-API-Tiny-1.131730-3) (*)
(*) 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-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
The lightweight tag 'perl-MetaCPAN-API-Tiny-1.131730-3.el7' was created
pointing to:
aca9001... Initial import (perl-MetaCPAN-API-Tiny-1.131730-3)
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
perl-devel mailing list
perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
The lightweight tag 'perl-MetaCPAN-API-Tiny-1.131730-3.fc20' was created
pointing to:
aca9001... Initial import (perl-MetaCPAN-API-Tiny-1.131730-3)
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
perl-devel mailing list
perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
The lightweight tag 'perl-MetaCPAN-API-Tiny-1.131730-3.fc19' was created
pointing to:
aca9001... Initial import (perl-MetaCPAN-API-Tiny-1.131730-3)
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
perl-devel mailing list
perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
The lightweight tag 'perl-MetaCPAN-API-Tiny-1.131730-3.fc21' was created
pointing to:
aca9001... Initial import (perl-MetaCPAN-API-Tiny-1.131730-3)
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
perl-devel mailing list
perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
On 02/25/2014 03:46 PM, Rich Megginson wrote:
On 02/25/2014 07:42 AM, thierry bordaz wrote:
On 02/25/2014 03:34 PM, Rich Megginson wrote:
On 02/25/2014 07:24 AM, thierry bordaz wrote:
On 02/24/2014 10:47 PM, Noriko Hosoi wrote:
Rich Megginson wrote:
On 02/24/2014 09:00 AM, thierry bordaz
On 02/25/2014 04:14 PM, thierry bordaz wrote:
On 02/25/2014 03:46 PM, Rich Megginson wrote:
On 02/25/2014 07:42 AM, thierry bordaz wrote:
On 02/25/2014 03:34 PM, Rich Megginson wrote:
On 02/25/2014 07:24 AM, thierry bordaz wrote:
On 02/24/2014 10:47 PM, Noriko Hosoi wrote:
Rich Megginson
On 02/25/2014 08:28 AM, thierry bordaz wrote:
On 02/25/2014 04:17 PM, Rich Megginson wrote:
On 02/25/2014 08:14 AM, thierry bordaz wrote:
On 02/25/2014 03:46 PM, Rich Megginson wrote:
On 02/25/2014 07:42 AM, thierry bordaz wrote:
On 02/25/2014 03:34 PM, Rich Megginson wrote:
On 02/25/2014
On 02/25/2014 11:28 AM, thierry bordaz wrote:
On 02/25/2014 04:53 PM, Ludwig Krispenz wrote:
On 02/25/2014 04:45 PM, Rich Megginson wrote:
On 02/25/2014 08:28 AM, thierry bordaz wrote:
On 02/25/2014 04:17 PM, Rich Megginson wrote:
On 02/25/2014 08:14 AM, thierry bordaz wrote:
On
On 02/25/2014 05:34 PM, Mark Reynolds wrote:
On 02/25/2014 11:28 AM, thierry bordaz wrote:
On 02/25/2014 04:53 PM, Ludwig Krispenz wrote:
On 02/25/2014 04:45 PM, Rich Megginson wrote:
On 02/25/2014 08:28 AM, thierry bordaz wrote:
On 02/25/2014 04:17 PM, Rich Megginson wrote:
On
On 02/25/2014 05:34 PM, Mark Reynolds wrote:
On 02/25/2014 11:28 AM, thierry bordaz wrote:
On 02/25/2014 04:53 PM, Ludwig Krispenz wrote:
On 02/25/2014 04:45 PM, Rich Megginson wrote:
On 02/25/2014 08:28 AM, thierry bordaz wrote:
On 02/25/2014 04:17 PM, Rich Megginson wrote:
On 02/25/2014
On 02/25/2014 05:56 PM, Rich Megginson wrote:
On 02/25/2014 09:51 AM, thierry bordaz wrote:
On 02/25/2014 05:36 PM, Rich Megginson wrote:
On 02/25/2014 09:28 AM, thierry bordaz wrote:
On 02/25/2014 04:53 PM, Ludwig Krispenz wrote:
On 02/25/2014 04:45 PM, Rich Megginson wrote:
On 02/25/2014
fixes are:
* support of setProperties for plugins
* add a wait timeout to task completion
commit c01618821f25e6caf3b28e3e08b5a1e097954581
Author: Thierry bordaz (tbordaz) tbor...@redhat.com
Date: Tue Feb 25 19:01:40 2014 +0100
Support of setProperties for plugins
diff --git
Using these definitions, anything run in taskotron that reports a
PASS/FAIL/OTHER status (ie, everything) would be a check. I'm not
saying that checks are bad or anything like that, just that there are
limitations to what a check (and an automated check, in particular) can
do.
My main
Hi!
As FESCo agreed on the last meeting to continue with current Change
process as is for Fedora 21 [1] and work on final schedule is ongoing
(see Stephan Gallagher's mail earlier), please participate and
submit your Change proposals as soon as possible.
With Fedora.next in mind, I'd like to ask
91 matches
Mail list logo
