On Wed, 20 Apr 2011 06:15:43 + (UTC), AR wrote:
Andre Robatino robatino at fedoraproject.org writes:
But if the user just wants to revoke their karma by changing their +/-1 to
a 0
(say they realize they're not able to test properly, which happened to me),
that's still not
On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 11:30:44 +0300, AT wrote:
AutoQA is still in testing phase, there is no enforcement yet.
Maybe the bodhi messages confused me. When I logon to a.f.o/updates it
prominently displays:
Bodhi is now enforcing the Package Update Acceptance
On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 10:40:22 -0700, AW wrote:
On Tue, 2011-04-19 at 18:30 +0200, Thomas Spura wrote:
On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 08:37:25 -0700
Adam Williamson wrote:
On Tue, 2011-04-19 at 11:05 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
Some packagers have been observed circumventing the system
On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 12:57:55 +0200, AB wrote:
On Mon, 2011-04-18 at 04:35 -0400, Kamil Paral wrote:
I built two sets of security updates for f13/f14/f15 and autoqa
rejected
the f13/f14 packages. It looks like autoqa is waiting for the
packages
to be properly pushed to fN+1 stable
On Sun, 17 Apr 2011 08:01:55 +0200, KK wrote:
Axel Thimm wrote:
Are you sure? I requested a push of the packages to stable (some were in
testing for a week, others were security updates) and the message was
that it doesn't pass AutoQA, so it converted to request to push only to
testing
On Sat, 16 Apr 2011 22:52:32 +0300, AT wrote:
Hi,
I built two sets of security updates for f13/f14/f15 and autoqa rejected
the f13/f14 packages. It looks like autoqa is waiting for the packages
to be properly pushed to fN+1 stable before green-lighting the
matching package for fN. Do I
On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 10:53:24 -0600, Kevin wrote:
On Sat, 9 Apr 2011 10:27:05 +0200
Michael Schwendt wrote:
Caution, everyone!
It seems that bodhi no longer obsoletes update tickets when submitting
newer ones. Currently, there are several competing test-updates, where
a ticket
And here's the analysis for libinfinity:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/libinfinity-0.5.0-1.fc15
* bodhi - 2011-04-05 13:10:32
This update has been submitted for testing by tbzatek.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/libinfinity-0.5.0-2.fc15
* bodhi - 2011-04-05 13:51:07
The following packages in the repository suffer from broken dependencies:
==
The results in this summary consider Test Updates!
==
package:
Caution, everyone!
It seems that bodhi no longer obsoletes update tickets when submitting
newer ones. Currently, there are several competing test-updates, where
a ticket exists for an old and a new release. But only the older release
is found in the repo actually due to a bug in bodhi (either
On Sat, 09 Apr 2011 12:25:37 +0200, Andreas wrote:
Is there a releng ticket for the koji buildroot override?
If so, I couldn't find it.
Currently, there are two competing test updates in bodhi:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/libchamplain-0.9.1-1.fc15
On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 14:37:48 -0400, Brian wrote:
Hi,
Just giving a heads up about an update to libchamplain to the latest
stable version. The apps affected are:
* empathy
* claws-mail-plugins-geolocation
* emerillon
* meego-panel-status
I'll be working on
On Thu, 7 Apr 2011 10:02:31 -0500, Matt wrote:
I think FTBFS has been valuable.
But of course!
Sure, I get the occasional why are you filling my mailbox with this
message, [...]
Wow. Unbelievable.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
On Wed, 06 Apr 2011 22:47:19 +0200, Jochen wrote:
Hallo,
I'm planing to revert the version of blender in the F-15 repository
from 2.56 to 2.49.
The reseaon is, that there are several packages depending on blender
which are not
compatible to blender-2.56 or beyond.
I plan to create a
On Sat, 2 Apr 2011 11:21:25 -0300, Sergio wrote:
2011/4/1 Ralf Corsepius:
On 04/01/2011 03:17 AM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Hi
Just a find on my Fedora 15 system for .la files, results in the
following. Do we run any routine tests for things like this? is AutoQA
meant to improve
On Fri, 25 Mar 2011 21:09:57 -0700, Garrett wrote:
On 3/25/2011 17:38, Branched Report wrote:
Compose started at Fri Mar 25 13:15:31 UTC 2011
An empty list? Quick, ship it!
In all seriousness, did something go wrong with the compose or are there
actually no depsolving problems?
An
The following packages in the repository suffer from broken dependencies:
==
The results in this summary consider Test Updates!
==
package:
On Wed, 16 Mar 2011 09:29:26 +0100, Alain wrote:
Hi,
Yesterday, I commited a kbackup update, with new sources, in all branches I
maintain.
I just forget to fedpkg new-sources in all branches but master before
commiting :-(
Is there an easy way to fix this error?
That's not all the
Various apps crashing in gtktreemodel.c's
IA__gtk_tree_model_get_valist
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/buglist.cgi?query_format=advancedshort_desc=IA__gtk_tree_model_get_valistbug_status=NEWbug_status=ASSIGNEDshort_desc_type=allwordssubstrclassification=Fedora
Sometimes after a button press
I've orphaned abicheck for F-15 and Rawhide.
If nobody wants to take it, I plan to retire it in about a week. It's
likely that nobody uses it anymore, so better not take it if you don't use
it either. ;)
Upstream has been inactive for a very long time (= years) and has not
even merged patches.
On Sun, 27 Feb 2011 21:15:40 +0200, Aurimas wrote:
I think this is sort of intentional. If I understand the way this is
supposed to work correctly then you are not supposed to care if Firefox is
already running but instead simply click on it in your favorites and if an
instance is
On Sun, 27 Feb 2011 21:43:54 +0100, drago01 wrote:
Have you tried right-click?
Right-click is flawed, as it doesn't offer to start the app if no instance
of
the app is running already:
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2011-February/097333.html
To start a new
On Sun, 27 Feb 2011 23:03:02 +0100, drago01 wrote:
Btw, I think the GNOME 3 roll-out in Fedora should be all or nothing,
that means, no *competing* fallback mode that tries to keep old panel
features alive.
Well the primary purpose of the fallback is to home something for
devices
On Thu, 24 Feb 2011 12:46:09 +0900 (JST), Akira wrote:
BN Orphan: apel
BN ddskk requires apel = 10.7-4.fc12
BN emacs-common-w3m requires apel = 10.7-4.fc12
BN emacs-w3m requires apel = 10.7-4.fc12
BN flim requires apel = 10.7-4.fc12
BN migemo-emacs requires apel =
On Thu, 24 Feb 2011 12:45:54 +0100, Michael wrote:
On Thu, 24 Feb 2011 12:46:09 +0900 (JST), Akira wrote:
BN Orphan: apel
BN ddskk requires apel = 10.7-4.fc12
BN emacs-common-w3m requires apel = 10.7-4.fc12
BN emacs-w3m requires apel = 10.7-4.fc12
BN flim requires
On Thu, 24 Feb 2011 09:28:10 +0100, Karel wrote:
- debuginfo symlink points to another binary in another RPM package which
might not be installed
Which is perfectly normal for subpackages, isn't it?
There is only a single -debuginfo package for a src.rpm, but the src.rpm
may build
On Thu, 24 Feb 2011 14:07:17 +0100, Dodji wrote:
This new path requires you to convince an existing maintainer
to mentor you in the processes and guidelines of package maintenance,
and would allow you to be sponsored by FESCo or an existing sponsor to
co-maintain those package(s) with
On Thu, 24 Feb 2011 16:53:07 +0100, Karel wrote:
Is this explanation understandable?
Yes.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 21:57:20 -0500, Gregory wrote:
On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 9:13 PM, Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
I didn't try Michael's fix myself since I don't have a rawhide box
with real audio hardware.
But looking at the celt code, specifically to the implementations of
On 18 February 2011 21:29, Matthias Clasen wrote:
On Fri, 2011-02-18 at 14:57 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/553069 (Nautilus) piles up duplicates.
I've pointed out what's going wrong in librsvg2, one way to prevent the
crash, and that there is another duplicate
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/553069 (Nautilus) piles up duplicates.
I've pointed out what's going wrong in librsvg2, one way to prevent the
crash, and that there is another duplicate (for F-13) here:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=553069#c8
--
In Fedora 15 development only, not reproducible with Fedora 14:
Could you help classifying the following backtrace?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=473671
It's related to dlopening a shared lib and crashes during initialization
of static members. (
On Thu, 10 Feb 2011 15:01:28 -0600, Dennis wrote:
The first pass though the mass rebuild has been completed
failures can be found at http://ausil.fedorapeople.org/failed.html and the
list of all things not built yet at
http://ausil.fedorapeople.org/rebuild.html
there is ~400 packages
On Mon, 7 Feb 2011 19:27:12 + (UTC), Cosimo wrote:
%changelog
+* Mon Feb 7 2011 Cosimo Cecchi cosimoc redhat com - 2.91.0-1.git20110207
+- Update to a 2.91.0 git snapshot
+- Disable DAAP sharing plugin, as it requires a newer libdmapsharing
+- Depend on gtk3
+
A newer
On Fri, 04 Feb 2011 09:38:37 +1000, Chris wrote:
So it seems that Audacious is not as flexible between its own different
version releases? What is with that?
Well, let's not question the developers' decision to bump their Generic
Plugin API Version and require plugins to be rebuilt.
Unlike
On Thu, 3 Feb 2011 21:44:09 +0100, Clemens wrote:
Hi,
Well, my Rawhide is still stuck with XFCE, because GNOME doesn't work.
Creating a fresh user account and logging in starts lots of GNOME related
processes, but ends with an empty screen with blue background and a
movable mouse
On Thu, 03 Feb 2011 13:04:56 -0800, John wrote:
I was able to compose a DVD of today's rawhide using pungi.
I was able to install it by: Customize Now, delete package 'gnote'
from GNOME packages; proceed.
I got stuck at firstboot because the X server did not start.
[It has worked in various
On Fri, 4 Feb 2011 21:09:41 +0100, Christoph wrote:
* At the graphical login screen, I cannot log in. I did the useradd
manually, and it appears as an empty entry to click on. Authentication
fails. Cursor doesn't show any asterisk characters either when typing
in the passphrase.
The
On Fri, 04 Feb 2011 10:29:13 +0100, Andreas wrote:
MCS [basic] gacutil.exe
Inconsistency detected by ld.so: dl-deps.c: 623: _dl_map_object_deps:
Assertion `nlist 1' failed!
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12454
Andreas.
Interesting.
Could you help classifying the
On Wed, 02 Feb 2011 10:58:27 -0800, Adam wrote:
QA and Desktop teams are running three Test Days to test out GNOME 3
ahead of F15 (and GNOME 3.0) releases, and the first is tomorrow!
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Day:2011-02-03_GNOME3_Alpha
Please come along and help test - there
As the Fedora 14 update of Audacious from 2.4.0 to 2.4.3 has not been
smooth at all and is still annoying users, who need 3rd party plugin
packages which still haven't been pushed, the following consequences are
arising IMO:
Fedora 13
I'm offering Audacious 2.2 (audacious-2.2-16 and
It is the responsibility of 3rd party package repositories, which _depend_
on Fedora packages, to tighten up the RPM dependencies beyond those added
by rpmbuild.
This is particularly important, if the 3rd party _cannot_ prepare updates
based on Fedora's Test Updates found in the updates-testing
On Sun, 30 Jan 2011 15:08:55 +0100, Alain wrote:
Hi
piklab fails to build in rawhide:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2750261
and I don't know how to fix.
Can somebody help me?
You could have quoted an excerpt from the build.log. I found this
for the failing x86_64
On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 18:10:31 -0500, Jean-Marc wrote:
Hello,
Hoping to be wrong.
Today I was working on my package after a long time,
I upgraded from version 2.1-320 to 2.1-400.
I didn't fedpkg new-sources and only updated
the spec file to be 2.1-400
Scenario:
Assume I have package foo. It's installed already, and the local RPM
database covers it and all its dependencies.
App foo used to run fine a month ago, but a rebuild no longer does.
Dependencies have been updated. Too many for rpm -qa --last|less or
yum's log to be helpful.
I'd like
On Wed, 26 Jan 2011 11:56:43 +, Richard wrote:
No, but I have a script which can list all the dependencies of a
package recursively [using data from yum, not rpm] if that is helpful:
repoquery --tree-requires ... [...] seems to be broken here,
Ah, it's just Adobe's packages that are broken and confuse the
depsolving. For example:
$ repoquery --whatprovides libgcc_s.so.1
libgcc-0:4.5.1-4.fc14.i686
AdobeReader_nor-0:8.1.7-1.i486
AdobeReader_ita-0:8.1.7-1.i486
On Wed, 26 Jan 2011 08:36:00 -0500, seth wrote:
I just want to make sure I have this:
1. rpm -qR foo
2. take each of those resolve it out to what provides them
3. return the buildtime + pkg name of each of those, sorted by buildtime
correct?
Yes.
$ repoquery --qf
On Mon, 24 Jan 2011 21:19:17 +0100, Adrian wrote:
A build from today only contains the files but not the provides.
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2740176
$ rpm -qlp ~/tmp/bind-libs-lite-9.7.3-0.4.b1.fc15.i686.rpm --provides -R
bind-libbind-devel = 31:9.3.3-4.fc7
On Fri, 21 Jan 2011 10:54:13 -0800, Brad wrote:
On 11:59 AM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Wed, 19 Jan 2011 06:57:09 -0800, Brad wrote:
I am using the compile directive
-I%{buildroot}%{_includedir}
during the test phase of a projects rpm build. This tests the installed
copy
On Sat, 22 Jan 2011 06:42:38 -0800, Brad wrote:
The www.coin-or.org server seems to be down, so I have placed a copy of
the CppAD spec file at
http://www.seanet.com/~bradbell/cppad.spec
Okay, got it. In %prep, you patch the source code to use
includedir=%{buildroot}%{_includedir}
As
On Wed, 19 Jan 2011 06:57:09 -0800, Brad wrote:
I am using the compile directive
-I%{buildroot}%{_includedir}
during the test phase of a projects rpm build. This tests the installed
copy of the include files instead of the copy in the distribution (and
hence is a better test of the
koji buildroot override is active!
test update has been submitted:
http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/audacious-2.4.3-1.fc14,audacious-plugins-2.4.3-1.fc14.pl1,xmp-3.3.0-2.fc14.1
On Sat, 15 Jan 2011 23:45:06 +0100, I wrote:
With upstream having released Audacious 2.4.3 and Fedora 14 still
Here's one of two package rename requests waiting in the package review
queue:
mcs* - libmcs*
http://bugzilla.redhat.com/664963
I would appreciate if any reviewer could help here. It should also
be low-hanging fruit for any newbie reviewers. Thanks in advance!
--
devel mailing list
With upstream having released Audacious 2.4.3 and Fedora 14 still sitting
at 2.4.0 with patches, I'd like to prepare an Update from to 2.4.3.
Due the previous announcement of the Generic Plugin ABI/API bump in 2.4.2,
a koji buildroot override for plugin package rebuilds is needed:
On Fri, 31 Dec 2010 12:07:02 +0100, Christoph wrote:
Some time ago, the Fedora default target for 32 bit Intel system moved
from i386 (F10) via i586 (F11) to i686 (F12). Nevertheless, even the
current development repo contains recent builds ending with
*.fc15.i386.rpm. Is there a particular
On Fri, 31 Dec 2010 17:06:55 +0100, Christoph wrote:
2010/12/31 Michael Schwendt:
Just for clarity, which recent builds are that?
Recent means obviously those carrying an fc15 tag.
That isn't anything like obvious, because development of Fedora 15
has started _months_ ago, and the .fc15
On Sun, 26 Dec 2010 13:18:32 +0100, Henrik wrote:
This should work:
$ repoquery --disablerepo=rpmfusion-free-updates --releasever=rawhide
--whatrequires libmysqlclient_r.so.16\*
There is also the isuse of libmysql_client.so.16 vs
libmysql_client_r.so.16.
repoquery
On Sat, 25 Dec 2010 13:33:43 -0500, Tom wrote:
According to repoquery, there are only four packages depending on
libmysqlclient_r:
$ repoquery --releasever=rawhide --whatrequires libmysqlclient_r.so.16
mysql++-0:3.1.0-2.fc14.i686
mysql-connector-c++-0:1.1.0-0.4.bzr895.fc15.i686
On Sat, 25 Dec 2010 14:33:37 -0500, Tom wrote:
What is wrong with the above query?
$ rpm -qf $(which repoquery)
yum-utils-1.1.28-1.fc14.noarch
I'm still on F13, but theoretically it should be the same no?
$ rpm -qf $(which repoquery)
yum-utils-1.1.28-1.fc13.noarch
$ repoquery
On Sat, 25 Dec 2010 14:33:37 -0500, Tom wrote:
I'm still on F13, but theoretically it should be the same no?
$ rpm -qf $(which repoquery)
yum-utils-1.1.28-1.fc13.noarch
You are on x86_64, right?
This is on F13 x86_64:
$ repoquery --disablerepo=rpmfusion-free-updates --whatrequires
On Sun, 19 Dec 2010 11:24:56 +0100, Ralf wrote:
Hi,
I am mail bombed with mails complaining about broken deps originating
from those EPEL6-versions of packages I maintain in Fedora.
* I am not these packages' maintainer (I maintain them in Fedora, but do
not maintain them in EPEL) -
On Fri, 17 Dec 2010 13:34:15 -0500, Matt wrote:
On Fri, 2010-12-17 at 18:32 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
* we are building packages against the known-to-be-broken package
The old package is already in stable. We're not doing additional harm
by building against it unless the breakage is a
Emphasis on stable. Koji buildroot production is not just about
s/production/protection/
--
The original reply is elsewhere in this thread. ;-)
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
On Fri, 17 Dec 2010 18:32:15 +0100, Ralf wrote:
+1 to some way of automating koji buildroot overrides (perhaps based
on FAS group membership such as provenpackagers) in order to remove
the releng bottleneck.
I am learning you are keen on more bureaucracy ;)
Nonsense. The current releng
On Thu, 16 Dec 2010 17:21:27 +0100, Ralf wrote:
On 12/16/2010 03:35 PM, Stanislav Ochotnicky wrote:
Hi,
I'd like to propose a small(ish) change to how updates to Fx and Fx-1 work.
Currently we have to wait until package gets to stable for it to appear
in buildroot. IMO this goes
I'm building Audacious 2.4.2 in Rawhide, and once available in the koji build
root, this will require rebuilds of the separate _plugin_ packages.
The tools/apps linked with Audacious' core libraries are not affected:
audtty
conky
2.4.2 is the first maintenance release in the [supposed to be
On Mon, 29 Nov 2010 16:11:37 + (UTC), Petr wrote:
On 2010-11-29, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
On 11/29/2010 08:04 PM, Petr Pisar wrote:
I do not get the idea why I should filter some irrelevant mails if
better is to not sent them. Especially if I cannot solve the subject of
the mail.
Well,
On Tue, 23 Nov 2010 18:55:38 +0100, Kevin wrote:
Mike Fedyk wrote:
Install package from updates-testing, then +1 to karma after it works
for you with your tests and normal workload.
The average user won't even KNOW there's an update available in updates-
testing before it's too late
On Thu, 25 Nov 2010 06:12:17 -0600, Rex wrote:
On Wed, 24 Nov 2010 13:25:15 -0700, Nathanael wrote:
Hello,
My aunt has F13 installed.. I got the following from her. Is this a
known bug ?? I can't make heads or tails of the error message or what to
tell her to do to resolve it.
On Thu, 25 Nov 2010 17:31:18 +0100, Marcela wrote:
On 11/25/2010 02:15 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Thu, 25 Nov 2010 06:12:17 -0600, Rex wrote:
On Wed, 24 Nov 2010 13:25:15 -0700, Nathanael wrote:
Hello,
My aunt has F13 installed.. I got the following from her
On Wed, 24 Nov 2010 11:03:41 +0100, Ralf wrote:
On 11/24/2010 10:45 AM, Matej Cepl wrote:
Dne 24.11.2010 03:28, Ralf Corsepius napsal(a):
No, it's not your fault (Or at least only partially). A functional QA
would catch such kind of breakages.
Yes, but functional QA would require more
On Wed, 24 Nov 2010 13:25:15 -0700, Nathanael wrote:
Hello,
My aunt has F13 installed.. I got the following from her. Is this a
known bug ?? I can't make heads or tails of the error message or what to
tell her to do to resolve it.
ERROR with rpm_check_debug vs depsolve:
perl-libs =
On Sat, 20 Nov 2010 15:35:43 -0700, Kevin wrote:
Other concrete ideas?
As a beginning, let's limit this thread to at most one message per person
per day.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
On Sun, 07 Nov 2010 19:07:08 -0500, Digimer wrote:
Try popping by IRC and asking why a particular bug hasn't been acted on.
Does that scale?
If it's a lack of time, then there you go.
I wouldn't expect somebody to lurk on IRC then and visit a ticket just
because someone else makes some
On Mon, 08 Nov 2010 20:19:17 +, Paul wrote:
deja-dup-15.3-2.fc14.x86_64 requires libnotify.so.1()
Lots seem broken with libnotify.so.1 - any chance of pushing rebuilds?
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2010-November/144914.html
--
devel mailing list
On Sat, 06 Nov 2010 04:17:59 +, Jóhann wrote:
On 11/06/2010 02:11 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 11/05/2010 10:06 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Thu, 04 Nov 2010 23:58:21 +, Jóhann wrote:
On behalf of all reporters that have never received a response from a
maintainer
On Fri, 05 Nov 2010 15:15:36 -0700, Adam wrote:
On Fri, 2010-11-05 at 23:09 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Fri, 05 Nov 2010 13:45:37 -0700, Adam wrote:
Something is terribly wrong here, if reporter adjusts F12 - F13 - F14
over a period of N months in reply to the automated
On Sat, 6 Nov 2010 12:23:00 +0200, Alexander wrote:
How can you expect a maintainer to fix/respond to hundreds of bugs and not
expect the user to verify his/her bug still applies?
Have you noticed how many ticket EOL warnings some users receive all of
a sudden? They may be able to pay
On Sat, 6 Nov 2010 13:36:24 +0200, Alexander wrote:
Hmm, let's switch user with maintainer?
Have you noticed how many new tickets some maintainers receive all of a
sudden?
In general or because of the EOL script creating a flood? ;)
Who classifies whether an incoming bug report is
On Sat, 6 Nov 2010 13:38:36 +0200, Alexander wrote:
Oh and I forgot to add this:
If you think it is discouraging for the user do get his bug autoclosed, why
do
you think it is not discouraging for the maintainer to ask questions and
noone
answers them?
Perhaps read my other replies
On Thu, 04 Nov 2010 09:38:35 -0700, Adam wrote:
On Thu, 2010-11-04 at 13:28 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
So can someone please explain my why I should continue to try to
improve Fedora by reporting bugs ?
Glad you ask this. The bugzapping script is stupid. It asks the reporter
On Fri, 05 Nov 2010 12:30:41 -0700, Adam wrote:
If the bug hasn't had any attention for the last
year and a half it's not particularly likely to magically get it now, is
it?
Then why should the reporter take action in reply to the NEEDINFO
bugzapping request?
Something is terribly wrong
On Fri, 05 Nov 2010 17:56:51 +0100, Ralf wrote:
ABRT
It doesn't tell the user that core dumps without reproducer are
worthless in most cases but blindly sends out reports
Parts of the Fedora user base abuse ABRT in that they refuse to
fill in the empty fields. Blame the reporters not the
On Thu, 04 Nov 2010 23:05:01 +0100, Jiri wrote:
- if you think ABRT is not providing a good info for you packages, then
please write me an email how to improve it
Could you please add another hurdle that tries to stop users from not
filling in the empty fields about how to reproduce a
On Thu, 04 Nov 2010 23:58:21 +, Jóhann wrote:
On behalf of all reporters that have never received a response from a
maintainer on a component they have reported against I not only ask the
ABRT maintainers to block any reports against those component that a
maintainer has not responded
On Fri, 5 Nov 2010 09:27:46 +0200, Alexander wrote:
I can't see why can't we just admit - This is our best feel free to join us
and help ?? (someone should find better wording)
Yeah. It isn't that obvious to our users (and potential contributors
among them) where help is needed, where help
On Fri, 05 Nov 2010 13:45:37 -0700, Adam wrote:
Something is terribly wrong here, if reporter adjusts F12 - F13 - F14
over a period of N months in reply to the automated NEEDINFO requests and
still doesn't get any response other than another automated one after
six more months.
So,
On Sun, 31 Oct 2010 04:37:38 +0100, Kevin wrote:
Martin Stransky wrote:
there's a new Firefox update waiting in Bodhi and we can't push it to
stable because of new rules. We recommend you to update to it ASAP as it
fixes a public critical 0day vulnerability
On Sat, 30 Oct 2010 15:19:45 +0300, Jussi wrote:
On Sat, 30 Oct 2010 07:14:43 -0400
Neal Becker wrote:
I have no idea what these messages I've received mean:
root has broken dependencies in the rawhide tree:
On x86_64:
root-unuran-5.26.00e-1.fc15.x86_64 requires
On Sat, 30 Oct 2010 21:57:59 +0200, Tomasz wrote:
Could you point us to review of LibreOffice package? According to
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2010-October/144107.html
you need full process for new package when changing upstream.
See %changelog.
-
On Fri, 29 Oct 2010 11:26:15 +1100, Bojan wrote:
Not sure if I'm imagining things, but it looks as if those have been
hosed. For example:
http://download.fedora.redhat.com/pub/fedora/linux/updates/14/x86_64/
Any ideas?
During the entire F-14 Branched development period, the updates repo
On Sun, 24 Oct 2010 12:25:01 -0500, Garrett wrote:
On 10/24/2010 10:17, Branched Report wrote:
Broken deps for x86_64
--
qtgpsc-0.2.3-6.fc12.x86_64 requires libgps.so.18()(64bit)
rakudo-0.0.2010.08_2.7.0-1.fc14.x86_64
On Wed, 20 Oct 2010 17:49:56 -0400, Neal wrote:
So I can have:
%dir blah
in a file included by -f? Didn't know that. (Wonder if it's documented?)
It's an include file afterall. You can use other macros than only %dir.
Or what do you think about how %find_lang works, for example?
--
devel
On Tue, 12 Oct 2010 13:49:41 -0400 (EDT), Michal wrote:
Hi all,
I've recently upgraded my system, but after that I was not able to connect
through ssh. More things are wrong (from my POV):
1)SELinux blocks all nondefault ports for ssh
I have ssh confugured to use different port than 22
On Fri, 01 Oct 2010 17:44:05 -0700, Jim wrote:
Any application that uses libgdl on F14 segfaults on startup.
Any? That would mean it would have been easy to test whether the update
works at all, but either it has been marked stable without any testing
or at a time when it worked:
On Sat, 2 Oct 2010 09:51:31 +0100, Richard wrote:
F14 seems to have acquired a misfeature where if you mistype a command
or a command is not found, it prints Command not found. then pauses
for some time, then (sometimes, not always) displays some sort of
error[1].
How do I permanently
On Sat, 02 Oct 2010 07:08:56 -0700, Jim wrote:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/libgdl-2.31.3-1.fc14
Anjuta is broken on F14. I don't know if any other apps in the F14 repo
use libgdl.
$ repoquery --whatrequires 'libgdl-1.so.3'
anjuta-1:2.31.90.0-1.fc14.i686
The following packages in the repository suffer from broken dependencies:
==
The results in this summary consider Test Updates!
==
package:
The following packages in the repository suffer from broken dependencies:
==
The results in this summary consider Test Updates!
==
package:
1101 - 1200 of 1396 matches
Mail list logo
