On 02/14/2011 06:18 PM, Tom Callaway wrote:
> On 02/14/2011 11:58 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> What is the procedure to push a package, which currently is causing
>> broken deps in f15 to f15 as fast as possible?
>>
>> Though bodhi offers a "
On 02/16/2011 10:55 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Marcela Mašláňová wrote:
>> I completely agree.
>>
>> At least nag-mails about the broken dependencies (because of rpm-4.9)
>> should be delivered sooner or we should wait with branching or do
>> mass-rebuild sooner. Now we have to build everything for
On 02/16/2011 05:07 PM, Marcela Maslanova wrote:
>
>
> - Original Message -
>> From: "Ralf Corsepius"
>> To: "Development discussions related to
>> Fedora"
>> Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2011 12:44:44 PM
>> Subject: Re: Procedur
On 02/21/2011 10:36 AM, Panu Matilainen wrote:
> On 02/21/2011 11:23 AM, Marcela Mašláňová wrote:
>> On 02/19/2011 09:10 PM, Remi Collet wrote:
>>> Le 19/02/2011 20:25, Rawhide Report a écrit :
>>>
gmusicbrowser-1.0.2-2.fc15.noarch requires perl(Gtk2::ScrolledWindow)
gmusicbrowser-1
On 02/21/2011 11:39 AM, Panu Matilainen wrote:
> On 02/21/2011 11:47 AM, Remi Collet wrote:
>> Le 21/02/2011 10:36, Panu Matilainen a écrit :
>>> A more likely candidate for new dependencies appearing is that rpm now
>>> collects dependencies from perl's "use base qw" syntax, which older
>>> versio
On 02/21/2011 02:47 PM, Iain Arnell wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 11:28 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> [snip]
>>
>> In case of the perl(Gtk2::*), rpm now collects "use base ..." requires,
>> but misses to collect and provide the XS-symbols they are implicitly
&g
On 02/21/2011 07:27 PM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 06:45:03PM +0100, Jan Kratochvil wrote:
>> On Mon, 21 Feb 2011 15:22:48 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>>> On a second thought - May-be it would be more suitable for perl to parse
>>> the *.pods, s
Hi,
I am facing a weird issue with koji and rawhide/f16:
When trying to build perl-Plack in koji, the f16 built fails:
f16: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2881639
with a seemingly networking related error from its testsuite:
...
t/Plack-Handler/apache2-registry.t ...
Hi,
I am facing a weird issue with koji and rawhide/f16:
When trying to build perl-Plack in koji, the f16 built fails:
f16: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2881639
with a seemingly networking related error from its testsuite:
...
t/Plack-Handler/apache2-registry.t ...
On 03/03/2011 04:55 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am facing a weird issue with koji and rawhide/f16:
>
>
> When trying to build perl-Plack in koji, the f16 built fails:
> f16: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2881639
Having re-tried half a da
Hi,
Any insights about what goes wrong here:
a) A local "fedpkg srpm" fails:
$ fedpkg srpm
Downloading HTTP-Server-Simple-PSGI-0.14.tar.gz
% Total% Received % Xferd Average Speed TimeTime Time
Current
Dload Upload Total SpentLeft
On 03/14/2011 06:04 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> Try again now.
>
> Looks like the iscsi mount on pkgs that is the lookaside storage
> remounted itself read-only. ;(
>
> It did this once before and it was thought it was just a isolated
> network hiccup, but this makes it sound like it's an ongoing real
On 03/14/2011 06:26 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 18:22:00 +0100
> Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>
>> On 03/14/2011 06:04 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
>>> Try again now.
>>>
>>> Looks like the iscsi mount on pkgs that is the lookaside storage
>>
On 05/03/2010 11:12 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-05-03 at 18:51 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>>
>> Except karma requirements (which were in force due to the critical path
>> process) did NOT prevent this particular regression, nor would a "1 week
>> minimum in testing" requirement have pre
On 05/04/2010 05:09 AM, Dave Airlie wrote:
> So it its none of these why do you want to fast track it into stable?
The fact nobody has reported a bug into Fedora's bugtracking system
doesn't mean a package is not bugged or doesn't suffer from defects.
The prototypical situations I am facing with
On 05/04/2010 05:55 PM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> On 05/04/2010 01:50 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>> "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
>>> You must all realize that the ratio of bureaucracy/process burden and
>>> quality of maintainers/packagers go hand in hand. The better the
>>> maintainers/packa
On 05/08/2010 01:41 AM, Matěj Cepl wrote:
> Dne 7.5.2010 16:56, Przemek Klosowski napsal(a):
> It seemed like the combination of best of being
> completely independent and maintaining your own repository (what would
> be now called PPA; I haven't heard the term then yet) and having support
> and c
On 05/09/2010 10:27 PM, Mike McGrath wrote:
> Bottom line is we should have done what we're doing now long ago, so we're
> suffering the consequences as a result. Lots of people with conflicting
> views are now here. Our lack of focus has just hurt us.
>
> Have you used OSX lately?
Have you eve
On 05/10/2010 11:18 AM, Matěj Cepl wrote:
> Dne 10.5.2010 06:54, Ralf Corsepius napsal(a):
>> Have you ever talked to Ubuntu/openSUSE users and listened to their
>> replies when telling them you are using Fedora?
>>
>> You will hear answers along the line of to
On 05/11/2010 03:42 PM, Marcela Maslanova wrote:
> Hello,
> I'm attaching list of failure. Some of them will be still
> fixable by simple rebuild. It's 133 build failures.
> perl-FreezeThaw
... builds after having upgraded it (package is in rawhide, but not in
perl-f14-perltest, yet).
> perl-Gnom
On 05/11/2010 04:21 PM, Paul Howarth wrote:
> Author: pghmcfc
>
> Update of /cvs/pkgs/rpms/perl-Date-Simple/EL-6
> In directory cvs01.phx2.fedoraproject.org:/tmp/cvs-serv12558/EL-6
>
> Modified Files:
> perl-Date-Simple.spec
> Log Message:
> Minor clean-ups
>
>
> Index: perl-Date-Simple.spec
On 05/11/2010 05:48 PM, Paul Howarth wrote:
> On 11/05/10 15:47, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>> On 05/11/2010 04:21 PM, Paul Howarth wrote:
>>> Author: pghmcfc
>>>
>>> Update of /cvs/pkgs/rpms/perl-Date-Simple/EL-6
>>> In directory cvs01.phx2.fedoraproject
On 05/11/2010 06:27 PM, James Antill wrote:
> As I said in another reply, there are currently no deltarpms for
> wesnoth-data due to it's size.
Then fix this deficiency of your process and provide them.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailma
On 05/11/2010 07:03 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-05-11 at 18:44 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>> On 05/11/2010 06:27 PM, James Antill wrote:
>>>As I said in another reply, there are currently no deltarpms for
>>> wesnoth-data due to it's size.
>
On 05/11/2010 07:01 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-05-11 at 10:57 +0100, Bastien Nocera wrote:
>> Does that have anything to do with me adding 2 bugs to the blockers the
>> day before the go/no-go meeting?
>
> Nope, not at all. It's very important that everybody still be able to
> propose
On 05/11/2010 07:12 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-05-11 at 19:10 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>
>> On 05/11/2010 07:03 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 2010-05-11 at 18:44 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>>>
>>>
On 05/11/2010 06:27 PM, James Antill wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-05-11 at 08:29 -0500, Jon Ciesla wrote:
>> , and we now have
>> deltarpms (and a huge thank to to all responsible there), so I really
>> don't think it's that big of an issue.
>
> As I said in another reply, there are currently no deltar
On 05/11/2010 07:33 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-05-11 at 19:20 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>> On 05/11/2010 07:12 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:
>>> On Tue, 2010-05-11 at 19:10 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 05/11/2010 07:03 PM, Jesse Keati
On 05/11/2010 03:42 PM, Marcela Maslanova wrote:
> Hello,
> I'm attaching list of failure. Some of them will be still
> fixable by simple rebuild. It's 133 build failures.
> perl-Apache2-SOAP
FWIW: this package fails due to a dependency on mod_perl.
When having rebuilt mod_perl, perl-Apache2-SOAP
Hi,
ATM, I am observing this:
# repoquery -qa 'nss-softokn-freebl*'
nss-softokn-freebl-0:3.12.4-19.fc13.x86_64
nss-softokn-freebl-0:3.12.4-17.fc13.i686
nss-softokn-freebl-devel-0:3.12.4-19.fc13.x86_64
nss-softokn-freebl-devel-0:3.12.4-19.fc13.i686
http://download.fedora.redhat.com/pub/fedora/li
On 05/31/2010 07:44 PM, Matt Domsch wrote:
> Fedora Fails To Build From Source Results for i386
> using rawhide from 2010-05-27
>
> This is a full rebuild, the first for Fedora 14's rawhide. The
> builders all have Fedora 13 installed.
> OpenSceneGraph-2.8.2-3.fc12 (build/make) corsepiu
From
htt
On 06/01/2010 10:43 PM, James Laska wrote:
> Greetings package maintainers,
>
> Want to get notification of any breakage in your just-built koji
> packages? This includes results of rpmlint [1],
Unless rpmlint starts to use a massively cleaned up set of rules, its
results are mostly noise.
--
d
On 06/02/2010 01:49 PM, James Laska wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-06-02 at 10:49 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>> On 06/01/2010 10:43 PM, James Laska wrote:
>>> Greetings package maintainers,
>>>
>>> Want to get notification of any breakage in your just-built koji
>
On 06/02/2010 02:36 PM, seth vidal wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-06-02 at 08:25 -0400, Matthias Clasen wrote:
>> On Wed, 2010-06-02 at 07:49 -0400, James Laska wrote:
>>> On Wed, 2010-06-02 at 10:49 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>>>> On 06/01/2010 10:43 PM, James Laska
On 06/02/2010 07:25 PM, Matt McCutchen wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-06-02 at 14:48 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>> Well, then lets begin:
>>
>> # rpmlint yum
>> yum.noarch: W: self-obsoletion yum-allow-downgrade< 1.1.20-0 obsoletes
>> yum-allow-downgrade
> [...
On 06/02/2010 08:23 PM, seth vidal wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-06-02 at 10:46 -0700, Jesse Keating wrote:
>> On Wed, 2010-06-02 at 19:41 +0200, Till Maas wrote:
>>> And I doubt that python scripts in below
>>> /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages usually need to be executable. Since
>>> yum works without any
On 06/09/2010 08:54 AM, Luke Macken wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-06-09 at 08:38 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>> Luke Macken wrote:
>>> By "success" I mean that I felt we were successful in drafting,
>>> implementing, deploying, and utilizing the mentioned policies as
>>> expected, and the results show incre
On 06/17/2010 03:51 PM, David Timms wrote:
> Hi, with the recent libcurl/curl updates for F12 I tried a:
> rpm -q --changelog of each.
> While curl's changelog looks normal, the information is shown twice for
> libcurl.
Likely you have 2 libcurls installed, libcurl.i386 and libcurl.x86_64.
Ralf
-
On 06/21/2010 02:22 PM, Marcela Mašláňová wrote:
> Hello,
> as you might noticed, perl was pushed into rawhide.
Well, ... any ETA for when it rsp. the whole branch will land?
So far, all rawhides mirrors I've checked still carry perl-5.10.1-118.
Have the packages already been pushed to the master
On 06/23/2010 06:50 AM, Jesse Keating wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-06-23 at 02:25 +0900, Mamoru Tasaka wrote:
>> Can we query what packages were "downgraded" due to this mass
>> perl-5.12.0-rebuild
>> retag?
In most occasions, his would not be sufficient. You would have to
rebuild them.
> Hrm, that's go
On 06/22/2010 04:57 PM, Jan Horak wrote:
> Author: xhorak
> Index: thunderbird.spec
> ===
> RCS file: /cvs/pkgs/rpms/thunderbird/devel/thunderbird.spec,v
> retrieving revision 1.174
> retrieving revision 1.175
> diff -u -p -r1.174 -r1
On 06/26/2010 07:33 AM, Adam Miller wrote:
> Sounds like it might need to be. Maybe push stable requests with -2 karma to
> some list that requires investigation and possibly a +3 (or other agreed
> upon number) proventesters karma to go stable?
Would you mind to explain how could have happened:
Hi,
The samba4 package in rawhide would need a rebuild for perl-5.12.x.
However building fails with strange error message[1]:
samba4-4.0.0-23.alpha11.fc14.2 (180065) failed on
ppc06.phx2.fedoraproject.org (noarch):
pg.DatabaseError: error 'ERROR: duplicate key value violates unique
constrai
Hi,
AFAICT, these packages remain to be looked after
* BackupPC-3.1.0-14
wants perl-suidperl (Abandoned by perl-5.12.)
* gnumeric-plugins-extras-1.10.0-1
Fails to build for reasons outside of Perl.
* perl-DBI-Dumper
Fails to build - Dead upstream.
* perl-Data-Alias
Fails to build - Dead upstre
On 06/28/2010 02:18 PM, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
> On Monday, June 28, 2010 12:53:10 am Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> The samba4 package in rawhide would need a rebuild for perl-5.12.x.
>> However building fails with strange error message[1]:
>>
>> samba4-
On 06/29/2010 06:17 AM, Braden McDaniel wrote:
> Updating F13 now works;
Does it?
Not for me.
...
Resolving Dependencies
--> Running transaction check
--> Processing Dependency: libedataserver-1.2.so.11 for package:
pidgin-evolution-2.7.1-2.fc13.i686
--> Processing Dependency: libedataserver-1
On 06/30/2010 06:18 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-06-30 at 11:35 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> The proposed policy might be workable if we had a surplus of
>> proventester manpower available, but we obviously have not got that.
And you think re-allocating the already scarce manpower to thi
On 06/30/2010 06:34 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 6/30/10 9:31 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>> On 06/30/2010 06:18 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
>>> On Wed, 2010-06-30 at 11:35 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>>
>>>>
On 06/30/2010 07:58 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 6/30/10 10:48 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>> My perception is: "marketing" has directed into a direction which drains
>> away man-power into an uncertain proc
On 07/02/2010 06:34 AM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Thu, 01 Jul 2010 21:17:38 -0700
> Jesse Keating wrote:
>
>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> On 7/1/10 6:18 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>>> I think we need to get rid of the concept of ownership entirely,
>>> that'd also make orphan
On 07/02/2010 09:37 AM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> On 07/02/2010 12:57 PM, Josephine Tannhäuser wrote:
>> It's seems to me that you have to be an employee of red hat to get the
>> privilegue to deal arbitrarily with all packages.
>
> Incorrect. Anyone in the provenpackagers group has access to almo
On 07/02/2010 10:05 AM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> On 07/02/2010 01:23 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>> The Petr's are apparent newbies/newcomers.
>>
>> They were granted access to all perl-packages, because they are @RH.
>> Probably because it is their paid job to work
On 07/02/2010 12:08 PM, Stanislav Ochotnicky wrote:
> Excerpts from Michael Schwendt's message of Fri Jul 02 11:34:38 +0200 2010:
>> On Fri, 02 Jul 2010 13:07:45 +0530, Rahul wrote:
>>
>>> IMO, there is absolutely nothing wrong with anyone
>>> with commit access updating packages in Rawhide
>>
>>
On 07/02/2010 01:58 PM, Dave Airlie wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-07-02 at 13:55 +0200, Léon Keijser wrote:
>> On Fri, 2010-07-02 at 11:34 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
>>> On Fri, 02 Jul 2010 13:07:45 +0530, Rahul wrote:
>>>
IMO, there is absolutely nothing wrong with anyone
with commit access
On 07/02/2010 06:00 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 02, 2010 at 09:53:00AM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>> On 07/02/2010 09:37 AM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>>>On 07/02/2010 12:57 PM, Josephine Tannhäuser wrote:
>>>> It's seems to me that you have to b
On 07/02/2010 06:07 PM, Richard Hughes wrote:
> On 2 July 2010 17:00, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
>>> They were granted access to all perl-packages, because they are @RH.
>>> Probably because it is their paid job to work on these packages.
>>>
>> Ralf, you need to stop repeating this particular line wh
On 07/02/2010 06:20 PM, Will Woods wrote:
> The main reasons we want to perform testing are things like: to avoid
> pushing updates with broken dependencies, or updates that cause serious
> regressions requiring manual intervention / emergency update
> replacements. That sort of thing.
>
Should b
On 07/02/2010 08:12 PM, Till Maas wrote:
> Btw. on a related issue:How do provenpackagers properly test for broken
> deps manually?
Like ordinary packagers should do ;)
The only difference between provenpackagers and "ordinary packagers" is
them having write access to packages they do not own.
On 07/03/2010 03:49 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> David Woodhouse wrote:
>> In the old days of RHL and beehive, I think we had it about right...
>> with the obvious exception that it was Red Hat only, but the attitude to
>> packaging was right, IMHO. There _was_ someone who knew most about a
>> package
On 07/02/2010 06:43 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 7/2/10 9:18 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>>> I had to apply and justify the reasons why I wanted to be a
>>>> provenpackager.
>> I know you did, but the Petr
On 07/03/2010 10:16 AM, Iain Arnell wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 3, 2010 at 10:06 AM, Remi Collet wrote:
>> Le 03/07/2010 10:02, Iain Arnell a écrit :
>>
How this should be handled nicely ?
>>>
>>> Exactly as it is at the minute - continue allow perl modules to share
>>> directory ownership.
>>>
>>>
On 07/07/2010 09:37 AM, Marcela Mašláňová wrote:
> On 07/03/2010 08:06 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>> An update:
>>
>> I filed BZ's on all of those packages which haven't not already been
>> tracked as FTBS. All of these BZs are tagged as "F14Target&
On 07/08/2010 05:05 AM, Iain Arnell wrote:
> 2010/7/7 Ralf Corsepius:
>> On 07/07/2010 03:21 PM, Marcela Mašláňová wrote:
>>> After I gained so much popularity on fedora-devel, I have no courage to
>>> ask rel-eng for another
>>> favour like "remove pac
On 07/07/2010 10:29 PM, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
> Hello Fedora!
>
> Please take a moment and read this email. There's cake in it for you.
>
> Upon the advice of Red Hat Legal, we have slightly amended the Fedora
> Licensing Guidelines
> (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelin
On 07/08/2010 05:07 PM, Marcela Mašláňová wrote:
> Author: mmaslano
> Index: perl.spec
> ===
> RCS file: /cvs/pkgs/rpms/perl/devel/perl.spec,v
> retrieving revision 1.273
> retrieving revision 1.274
> diff -u -p -r1.273 -r1.274
> ---
On 07/12/2010 09:34 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Christoph Wickert wrote:
>> Ask yourself: What do we gain, if we gather all these backtraces in
>> bugzilla and then close them WONTFIX? It's more work for the users, the
>> maintainers and the bugzappers, but we gain nothing. Seems like a bad
>> deal,
On 07/13/2010 10:33 AM, Marcela Mašláňová wrote:
> On 07/08/2010 10:13 AM, Marcela Mašláňová wrote:
>> BTW: We are talking about 4 packages, involving these 3 maintainers:
>>>
>>> perl-DBI-Dumper: Chris Weyl
>>> perl-Data-Alias: Chris Weyl
>>> perl-Pugs-Compiler: Steven Pritchard.
>>> perl-Test-Aut
On 07/07/2015 03:54 PM, Chris Adams wrote:
Once upon a time, Michael Catanzaro said:
For Fedora 24, we've proposed trimming down Anaconda much more, since
most of Anaconda's functionality is redundant with our initial setup
tool that already handles language, keyboard, and timezone selection: h
On 07/15/2015 10:20 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Description and Summary can be localized in .spec file [1], where
supposedly "names" in comps terminology refers to "summary" in .spec
terminology. Including translations is encouraged in guidelines as well
[2, 3], unfortunately without any further deta
Hi
I am facing a bizarre f23-koji build breakdown:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=10366596
The interesting part seems to be hidden in this file:
https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/6598/10366598/checkout.log:
$ git clone -n git://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/ht
/var/li
On 07/15/2015 04:51 PM, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 04:07:31PM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
Hi
I am facing a bizarre f23-koji build breakdown:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=10366596
The interesting part seems to be hidden in this file:
https
On 07/15/2015 06:05 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jul 2015 11:05:40 -0400, Przemek Klosowski wrote:
Well, watching all the people that somehow manage to submit new
packages into the review queue, the process up to that point can't be
too bad, and one can safely assume they would be pe
On 07/15/2015 07:03 PM, Przemek Klosowski wrote:
On 07/15/2015 12:05 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jul 2015 11:05:40 -0400, Przemek Klosowski wrote:
I do understand where you're coming from: the Fedora workflow is quite
complicated
What exactly do you find "quite complicated"?
https:
On 07/28/2015 03:34 AM, Dan Callaghan wrote:
Excerpts from paulo.cesar.pereira.de.andrade's message of 2015-07-27 00:05
+10:00:
Should I make the doc packages arch specific?
Rather than trying to make Sphinx spit out bitwise-identical output on
every arch (which sounds like fighting a losing
On 07/28/2015 07:57 AM, Alexander Ploumistos wrote:
Has the issue been resolved? I have pushed three new packages to f22
and f21 updates-testing, but they have yet to appear in my usual local
mirrors.
I guess no.
I am waiting for my updates to get for weeks and am already withholding
other fo
On 07/28/2015 10:58 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:
On 07/26/2015 04:05 PM, Paulo César Pereira de Andrade wrote:
Should I make the doc packages arch specific?
No, this is not a reason to make them arch-specific. A lot of packages
give different results when built twice in a row, on the *same*
arc
On 07/29/2015 11:12 PM, Josh Boyer wrote:
On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 4:55 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 10:36:07AM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
Secondly, it would be excellent if someone could commit to spinning
test ISOs when requested. Turn around time on bugs like this are
On 08/01/2015 09:25 PM, Jan Kratochvil wrote:
Hi,
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1249325
GDB requires some library libXXX.so.3 by dlopen(). Therefore it is not found
by rpm automatic requires/provides from DT_NEEDED. Therefore one has to add
the libXXX.so.3 by specific BuildRequi
On 08/02/2015 08:39 AM, Marcin Haba wrote:
Hello,
I am trying to make informal review following feature request:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1244353
One from warnings returned by rpmlint is:
ossim-data.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/profile.d/ossim.sh
Because ossim.sh is
On 08/02/2015 09:33 AM, Jan Kratochvil wrote:
It was reworked from ordinary DT_NEEDED to this dlopen() approach because
librpm.so is (was) the only incompatible shared library dependency between
various versions of RHELs/CentOSes and Fedoras. So with dlopen()ed librpm one
can take latest Fedora
On 08/03/2015 04:37 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
On Mon, 3 Aug 2015 01:13:52 +0200
I think posting patches or other issues here is fine as long as theres
some reason to involve the larger development community.
... like in this case.
Broken upgrade paths and disinterest in fixing them have a long
On 08/04/2015 05:12 PM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
Paul W. Frields (sticks...@gmail.com) said:
Here's my perspective as an i686 Fedora user...
I have a box (2009-ish) that's in use as a file/backup server.
I have 3 i686 boxen.
2 are 2009-ish atom-netbook, one is a 2000-ish PIII-desktop.
As s
On 08/14/2015 12:00 PM, Richard Z wrote:
I regularly use i686 and have not done a fresh install since years so
would not detect this. Maybe fresh installs aren't such a deal for i686
users
Well, from my experience, fresh installs on i686 are a major problem w/
Fedora, because Fedora's SW demand
On 08/19/2015 06:59 PM, Zach Villers wrote:
On Wed, 19 Aug 2015 11:18:04 -0400 *Kevin Fenzi *
wrote
Greetings.
We had some nice discussions about rawhide in my friday workshop at
flock. I thought I would post here to get input from folks not there,
and also allow peop
On 08/20/2015 01:07 AM, Eric Griffith wrote:
Personally, if it weren't for the confusion, I think Fedora Next would
be the perfect name for this.
May-be, you guys are too young to know, but to me Fedora Next, would be
a Fedora distribution addressing Steve Job/Apple's NeXt and advertising
for
On 08/20/2015 06:08 AM, Christopher Meng wrote:
On 8/20/15, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
Thanks for your patience as we roll out this new bodhi version.
"This update has reached 3 days in testing and can be pushed to stable
now if the maintainer wishes"
"This update has reached 14 days in testing and
On 08/18/2015 12:04 PM, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
BTW this report reveals that we have just 39 active sponsors (during past year).
If you are sponsors, please consider sponsoring somebody from the queue:
http://fedoraproject.org/PackageReviewStatus/NEEDSPONSOR.html
You should understand that sp
On 08/20/2015 09:23 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 20.08.2015 um 06:01 schrieb Ralf Corsepius:
On 08/20/2015 01:07 AM, Eric Griffith wrote:
Personally, if it weren't for the confusion, I think Fedora Next would
be the perfect name for this.
May-be, you guys are too young to know, but
On 08/20/2015 09:51 AM, Milan Crha wrote:
On Wed, 2015-08-19 at 21:45 -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
There will likely be oddities and bugs. Please file them in github so
we can prioritize them and get them fixed up.
https://github.com/fedora-infra/bodhi/issues
Hi,
I do not have a github a
On 08/20/2015 12:00 PM, Paul Howarth wrote:
On 20/08/15 10:28, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 08/20/2015 09:51 AM, Milan Crha wrote:
On Wed, 2015-08-19 at 21:45 -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
There will likely be oddities and bugs. Please file them in github so
we can prioritize them and get them fixed
On 08/20/2015 03:42 PM, Zach Villers wrote:
Le Mer 19 août 2015 18:22, Rex Dieter a écrit :
> Kevin Fenzi wrote:
>
>> * Matt opened a thread on the marketing list about renaming rawhide. It
>> sounds like most people would prefer us to make the changes first,
>> then and only then look at re
On 08/20/2015 03:13 PM, Eric Griffith wrote:
If you have a bad experience that experience stays
with you. Maybe you can get over it, maybe you can't. But a name does
have history.
I guess, you guys are not aware that other names related to
RH/CentOS/Fedora also have "ambivalent" and "polarizin
On 08/20/2015 06:05 PM, Tomasz Torcz wrote:
On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 10:02:44AM -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
Are things like redhat bugzilla, koji and fedocal also slow?
Bugzilla is always slow, it's not a good reference ;-)
Definitely. But bodhi2 seemed worse :-)
What might have interfered
On 08/20/2015 06:00 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
On Thu, 20 Aug 2015 17:55:01 +0200
Kevin Kofler wrote:
Ralf Corsepius wrote:
I share this view. I refuse to create a github account and do not
consider using any external account resources for Fedora to be
acceptable.
While I do have a GitHub
On 08/20/2015 07:51 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
On Thu, 20 Aug 2015 12:33:37 -0500
Michael Cronenworth wrote:
On 08/20/2015 12:02 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
To me any non fedora/redhat supplied account system is inacceptable,
This applies to github, sourceforge, farcebook, nitter, goggle, or
On 08/20/2015 06:24 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 08/20/2015 06:08 AM, Christopher Meng wrote:
On 8/20/15, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
Thanks for your patience as we roll out this new bodhi version.
"This update has reached 3 days in testing and can be pushed to stable
now if the maintainer w
On 08/20/2015 07:39 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
Well, I don't know if there was a Big Philosophical Discussion, but in
practice all kinds of Fedora-ish stuff has its upstream in github these
days, so yes, clearly times have changed.
That's not the point. I am talking about separating Fedora
we
On 08/21/2015 08:47 AM, Till Hofmann wrote:
On 08/21/2015 08:34 AM, Till Hofmann wrote:
Also, it seems like I can revoke other people's updates. At least I
could press the 'Revoke' button and I received a confirmation
notification. Also, instead of the Revoke button, there is now a "Push
to Te
On 08/20/2015 07:40 PM, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
On 19 August 2015 at 22:24, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 08/20/2015 06:08 AM, Christopher Meng wrote:
On 8/20/15, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
Thanks for your patience as we roll out this new bodhi version.
"This update has reached 3 da
On 08/21/2015 04:03 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Fri, 21 Aug 2015 09:00:29 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 08/21/2015 08:34 AM, Till Hofmann wrote:
Also, it seems like I can revoke other people's updates. At least I
could press the 'Revoke' button and I received a confirmati
301 - 400 of 1056 matches
Mail list logo
