-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hello all,
there are a lot of pidgin bugs (mainly crashes reported via abrt) that have
been piling up in the bugzilla for quite some time now and nobody is taking a
look at them. Although I am a co-maintainer, I can't devote much time to
pidgin. I
On 14 Jan 2014 06:04, David Airlie airl...@redhat.com wrote:
Hi all,
I've gotten a build tag f21-llvm for attempting to rebase rawhide to llvm
3.4
Assuming there aren't any major stumbling blocks, are there any plans to
back port llvm 3.4 to f20 (like was done for llvm 3.3 in f19)?
I need
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 11/18/2013 04:54 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
jsynacek:BADURL:xferstats-2.16.tar.gz:xferstats
xferstats.off.net seems to be down. I'll try to contact the author who is
mentioned in the manpage. In case I get no response, should I just remove the
URL?
Le Lun 13 janvier 2014 21:33, drago01 a écrit :
No it cannot. Most of this flash implemenations only work to play
flash you don't want anyway (i.e ads).
Unfortunately I've found out a lot of companies that grew around brick and
mortar distribution only describe their products in flashified
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 10:34 AM, Nicolas Mailhot
nicolas.mail...@laposte.net wrote:
Le Lun 13 janvier 2014 21:33, drago01 a écrit :
No it cannot. Most of this flash implemenations only work to play
flash you don't want anyway (i.e ads).
Unfortunately I've found out a lot of companies that
Le Lun 13 janvier 2014 01:37, Adam Williamson a écrit :
On Sun, 2014-01-12 at 19:43 +0100, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 12.01.2014 19:39, schrieb Adam Williamson:
Have you looked at what people are installing on Fedora lately? Have
you
looked at how much PHP stuff there is out there vs. what
Le Dim 12 janvier 2014 19:43, Reindl Harald a écrit :
Am 12.01.2014 19:39, schrieb Adam Williamson:
Have you looked at what people are installing on Fedora lately? Have you
looked at how much PHP stuff there is out there vs. what we have
packaged 'properly'? Java? Ruby? Do you know anyone
Le Lun 13 janvier 2014 18:21, Colin Walters a écrit :
Many upstream build/deployment systems have substantial portions of the
metadata (BuildRequires/Requires) that RPM needs, it just needs to be
manually maintained/duplicated in the spec.
And they are usually missing substancial portions of
Am 14.01.2014 10:50, schrieb Nicolas Mailhot:
Le Dim 12 janvier 2014 19:43, Reindl Harald a écrit :
Am 12.01.2014 19:39, schrieb Adam Williamson:
Have you looked at what people are installing on Fedora lately? Have you
looked at how much PHP stuff there is out there vs. what we have
only over my dead body i would start wrap more and more layers on top of
already virtualized infrastructures
Containers have little to almost no overhead, they bring more isolation
(and i can't wait docker/selinux integration for more security), the FS
layered approach allows to save spaces.
Am 14.01.2014 11:53, schrieb H. Guémar:
only over my dead body i would start wrap more and more layers on top of
already virtualized infrastructures
Containers have little to almost no overhead, they bring more isolation (and
i can't wait docker/selinux
integration for more security),
On 01/13/2014 04:11 PM, H. Guémar wrote:
there's a draft, i suggest that you start checking it.
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Go
A couple of questions and comments. I think overall, the approach works.
# Packaging Libraries
This does not mention libraries which use cgo.
My apologies if you felt i misquoted you, i didn't intend that.
I do plenty of SaaS deployments at $DAYJOB, and i can easily pack hundreds
to thousands // running containers on a single machine.
Remember that Fedora is on the innovative side of the distro spectrum, yes
vhost is the present, but
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1052859
Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
---
On 01/14/2014 01:09 AM, Orion Poplawski wrote:
On 01/13/2014 03:26 PM, Miroslav Suchy wrote:
I just deployed new version of Copr at:
http://copr.fedoraproject.org
It have only one feature: you can now build in epel-7-x86_64!
To be precise - the name epel is little bit misleading,
On 01/13/2014 09:04 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 13.01.2014 20:50, schrieb Martin Stransky:
On 01/13/2014 05:57 PM, Peter Robinson wrote:
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 3:49 PM, Martin Stransky stran...@redhat.com wrote:
On 01/13/2014 04:41 PM, Josh Boyer wrote:
I don't say it's
On 01/13/2014 09:33 PM, Peter Robinson wrote:
[...]
It's the same as the gtk2 package, gstreamer support does not depend on
toolkit. IIRC the test package has gstreamer enabled as well as the latest
official Fedora Firefox builds.
It was said in bug [1] comment 9 that it wouldn't be enabled
Am 14.01.2014 13:18, schrieb Martin Stransky:
On 01/13/2014 09:33 PM, Peter Robinson wrote:
[...]
It's the same as the gtk2 package, gstreamer support does not depend on
toolkit. IIRC the test package has gstreamer enabled as well as the latest
official Fedora Firefox builds.
It was
On 14 Jan 2014 06:04, David Airlie airl...@redhat.com wrote:
Hi all,
I've gotten a build tag f21-llvm for attempting to rebase rawhide to llvm
3.4
Assuming there aren't any major stumbling blocks, are there any plans to back
port llvm 3.4 to f20 (like was done for llvm 3.3
On Tue, 2014-01-14 at 11:00 +0100, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
So instead of the perenial let's drop rpm and use upstream incomplete
systems
You might note I didn't say that.
I'd like to see the people working in those language communities
work at adding the missing bits to those upstream
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 01/13/2014 12:50 PM, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 6:32 PM, Stephen Gallagher
sgall...@redhat.com wrote:
Probably this needs to go to FESCo/FPC, but what about
package-specific CAs? For example, I have a pattern I was
thinking
Dne 20.12.2013 11:51, Miro Hrončok napsal(a):
Dne 19.12.2013 09:33, Florian Weimer napsal(a):
I think Debian has a working rpmbuild, but it obviously doesn't help if
you aren't allowed to install packages.
So apparently rpmbuild works, but ignores my %global statements, so the
command fails:
A file has been added to the lookaside cache for perl-IO-Socket-SSL:
a48c412bbcf3cd0d90b15b8baf9f2d6f IO-Socket-SSL-1.963.tar.gz
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
perl-devel mailing list
perl-de...@lists.fedoraproject.org
commit 02c20ac6136de42d3517062cd7178db46cf1a630
Author: Jose Pedro Oliveira j...@di.uminho.pt
Date: Tue Jan 14 14:24:18 2014 +
Update to 1.04.
.gitignore |1 +
perl-ZMQ-Constants.spec |7 +--
sources |2 +-
3 files changed, 7 insertions(+),
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
El Tue, 14 Jan 2014 14:18:38 +
Paul Howarth p...@city-fan.org escribió:
On 10/01/14 23:52, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
Hi All,
Se we have composes working automatically now, the job had been
failing. I'm trying to get epel 7 to the point where
What's the point ? There's absolutely no benefit in keeping Gtk+2 longer.
Gtk+ 2.24.0 has been released 3 years ago (january, 2011) and is only
receiving bugfix due to existing apps who didn't move to Gtk+3.
By migrating more apps, we can drop Gtk+ 2.24 (at least from images),
firefox is one of
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 01/13/2014 04:17 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
[Moving this to the libguestfs mailing list]
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 03:05:14PM -0500, Daniel J Walsh wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1
On 01/13/2014 11:49 AM, Richard W.M.
On Tue, 14 Jan 2014 15:22:52 +0100
Maros Zatko mza...@redhat.com wrote:
[1] https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=627699
What can do users who doesn't want that gtk3 port?
For some users reasoning that it works better in gnome-shell is
just not enough.
I don't use Gnome, works fine
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 12:54 PM, David Airlie airl...@redhat.com wrote:
On 14 Jan 2014 06:04, David Airlie airl...@redhat.com wrote:
Hi all,
I've gotten a build tag f21-llvm for attempting to rebase rawhide to
llvm
3.4
Assuming there aren't any major stumbling
H. Guémar wrote:
What's the point ? There's absolutely no benefit in keeping Gtk+2 longer.
Gtk+ 2.24.0 has been released 3 years ago (january, 2011) and is only receiving
bugfix due to existing apps who didn't move to Gtk+3.
By migrating more apps, we can drop Gtk+ 2.24 (at least from images),
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 08:49:05AM -0600, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
H. Guémar wrote:
What's the point ? There's absolutely no benefit in keeping Gtk+2 longer.
Gtk+ 2.24.0 has been released 3 years ago (january, 2011) and is only
receiving
bugfix due to existing apps who didn't move to
2014/1/14 Daniel P. Berrange berra...@redhat.com
In fact Fedora still ships GTK *1*. If we can't even get rid of GTK1,
then talk of killing GTK2 seems wildly over optimistic.
Regards,
Daniel
I'll quote myself again: at least from base images , not removing it from
repositories.
H.
--
On 01/13/2014 04:16 PM, Christopher Meng wrote:
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 11:15 PM, Martin Stransky stran...@redhat.com wrote:
Hi guys,
first $SUBJ is available at:
http://stransky.fedorapeople.org/FirefoxGtk3/
It's just a src.spm and plugin support it not finished (don't browse youtube
;-))
Am 14.01.2014 15:59, schrieb Daniel P. Berrange:
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 08:49:05AM -0600, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
H. Guémar wrote:
What's the point ? There's absolutely no benefit in keeping Gtk+2 longer.
Gtk+ 2.24.0 has been released 3 years ago (january, 2011) and is only
receiving
On 01/14/2014 01:06 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
On 01/13/2014 04:11 PM, H. Guémar wrote:
there's a draft, i suggest that you start checking it.
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Go
A couple of questions and comments. I think overall, the approach works.
# Packaging Libraries
The lightweight tag 'perl-Compress-Raw-Lzma-2.061-1.el7' was created pointing
to:
1fefe20... Update to 2.061
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
perl-devel mailing list
perl-de...@lists.fedoraproject.org
The lightweight tag 'perl-Data-Buffer-0.04-17.el7' was created pointing to:
ce12ebf... - Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_19_Mass
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
perl-devel mailing list
perl-de...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Analyzed the BRs more closely and produced some graphs for your viewing
pleasure:
http://www.harald-hoyer.de/2014/01/14/self-hosting-fedora-base/
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct:
Step 13 of the New package process for existing contributors
(https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/New_package_process_for_existing_contributors)
is to push packages to updates-testing. Step 14 is to update comps.
Do I first need to wait for the package to make it's way from updates-testing
to
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 2:49 PM, Michael Cronenworth m...@cchtml.com wrote:
H. Guémar wrote:
What's the point ? There's absolutely no benefit in keeping Gtk+2 longer.
Gtk+ 2.24.0 has been released 3 years ago (january, 2011) and is only
receiving
bugfix due to existing apps who didn't move
On 01/14/2014 03:38 PM, H. Guémar wrote:
What's the point ?
Personally, it's mainly about not throwing gnome 3 HIG at people.
There's absolutely no benefit in keeping Gtk+2 longer.
Gtk+ 2.24.0 has been released 3 years ago (january, 2011) and is only
receiving bugfix due to existing apps who
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 2:36 PM, Stephen Gallagher sgall...@redhat.com wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 01/13/2014 12:50 PM, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 6:32 PM, Stephen Gallagher
sgall...@redhat.com wrote:
Probably this needs to go to FESCo/FPC, but
The lightweight tag 'perl-Parallel-ForkManager-1.05-1.el7' was created pointing
to:
695685d... Update to latest upstream version.
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
perl-devel mailing list
perl-de...@lists.fedoraproject.org
On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 9:01 PM, Bill Nottingham nott...@redhat.com wrote:
Miloslav Trmač (m...@volny.cz) said:
Actually, even more generally - why a self-hosting Base at all? It
would clearly be absurd for the kernel to be self-hosting, and clearly
we want the Fedora universe to be
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1052430
Adam Miller admil...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |CLOSED
Am 14.01.2014 19:12, schrieb Maros Zatko:
On 01/14/2014 03:38 PM, H. Guémar wrote:
What's the point ?
Personally, it's mainly about not throwing gnome 3 HIG at people
personally if a GTK user does not want GTK3 i want a pure
QT firefox to get rid of GTK-dialogs
i know that will not happen,
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 12:06:09PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
A couple of questions and comments. I think overall, the approach works.
# Packaging Libraries
This does not mention libraries which use cgo. Should they be
handled the same way? What about additional C wrappers?
I think for
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 05:49:03PM +0100, Harald Hoyer wrote:
Analyzed the BRs more closely and produced some graphs for your viewing
pleasure:
http://www.harald-hoyer.de/2014/01/14/self-hosting-fedora-base/
Beautiful! Well, kind of ugly. But it's neat to see!
Also humorous that graphviz is
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 07:52:29PM +0100, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
Really I'd be fine with a compiler in the bigger universe - or,
perhaps (NOT actually proposing this, we coordinating between the WGs
already requires enough work) in a development tools product.
It doesn't necessarily need to be
On Tue, 14 Jan 2014 17:06:37 + (GMT)
Peter Oliver lists.fedoraproject@mavit.org.uk wrote:
Step 13 of the New package process for existing contributors
(https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/New_package_process_for_existing_contributors)
is to push packages to updates-testing. Step 14 is to
I have some trivial cleanups I want to make to a package a maintain.
These cleanups are trivial enough that I don't think they're worth a
new build. Should I commit them to the master branch? If so, I can
imagine a couple of issues:
- A provenpackager could kick off a rebuild for whatever
tflink added a dependent task: T41: Phase 1 Taskotron Runner
TASK DETAIL
https://phab.qadevel.cloud.fedoraproject.org/T45
To: tflink
Cc: qa-devel, tflink
___
qa-devel mailing list
qa-de...@lists.fedoraproject.org
tflink added a dependency: T45: dynamically load modules for task directives
TASK DETAIL
https://phab.qadevel.cloud.fedoraproject.org/T41
To: tflink
Cc: qa-devel, tflink
___
qa-devel mailing list
qa-de...@lists.fedoraproject.org
tflink created this task.
tflink added subscribers: qa-devel, tflink.
tflink added a project: taskotron
TASK DESCRIPTION
In the demo code, the directives (koji, python, etc.) are all loaded at run
time. While this works for the time being, it will start contributing to
undesired side-effects
On 14/01/14 20:41, Andrew Lutomirski wrote:
I have some trivial cleanups I want to make to a package a maintain.
These cleanups are trivial enough that I don't think they're worth a
new build. Should I commit them to the master branch? If so, I can
imagine a couple of issues:
- A
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1046506
Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ON_QA |CLOSED
On Tue, 14 Jan 2014 12:41:42 -0800
Andrew Lutomirski l...@mit.edu wrote:
I have some trivial cleanups I want to make to a package a maintain.
These cleanups are trivial enough that I don't think they're worth a
new build. Should I commit them to the master branch? If so, I can
imagine a
The following Fedora EPEL 5 Security updates need testing:
Age URL
632
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2012-5630/bugzilla-3.2.10-5.el5
123
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2013-11560/fail2ban-0.8.10-4.el5
87
On Tue, 2014-01-14 at 12:41 -0800, Andrew Lutomirski wrote:
I have some trivial cleanups I want to make to a package a maintain.
These cleanups are trivial enough that I don't think they're worth a
new build. Should I commit them to the master branch? If so, I can
imagine a couple of issues:
information about the CPU(s)
Update Information:
* Tue Jan 14 2014 Fabian Affolter m...@fabian-affolter.ch - 20140114-1
- Update to new upstream version 20130114
tflink created this task.
tflink added subscribers: qa-devel, tflink.
tflink added a project: taskotron
TASK DESCRIPTION
For phase 1, we need to replace AutoQA. This means that we need the ability
to report results directly to bodhi - at least for the short term.
The directive will take
tflink added a dependent task: T41: Phase 1 Taskotron Runner
TASK DETAIL
https://phab.qadevel.cloud.fedoraproject.org/T46
To: tflink
Cc: qa-devel, tflink
___
qa-devel mailing list
qa-de...@lists.fedoraproject.org
tflink added a dependency: T46: bodhi directive module
TASK DETAIL
https://phab.qadevel.cloud.fedoraproject.org/T41
To: tflink
Cc: qa-devel, tflink
___
qa-devel mailing list
qa-de...@lists.fedoraproject.org
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 12:59 PM, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote:
On Tue, 2014-01-14 at 12:41 -0800, Andrew Lutomirski wrote:
I have some trivial cleanups I want to make to a package a maintain.
These cleanups are trivial enough that I don't think they're worth a
new build. Should
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
As of 14th January 2014, Fedora 18 has reached its end of life for
updates and support. No further updates, including security updates,
will be available for Fedora 18. A previous reminder was sent on
December 18th [0].
Fedora 19 will continue to
On 01/13/2014 03:26 PM, Miroslav Suchy wrote:
I just deployed new version of Copr at:
Hi Miroslav,
I just tried Copr. Very nice!
1. +1 for armhfp arch! (On my mind b/c I've just spent a while
playing with Fedora chroots on a Samsung Galaxy Note 8.)
2. It would be very convenient to
On Mon, 13 Jan 2014, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
On 01/13/2014 09:57 AM, Frank Murphy wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jan 2014 09:53:53 +0100
Miroslav Suchý msu...@redhat.com wrote:
On 01/13/2014 08:56 AM, Frank Murphy wrote:
to be certain you can do dnf(yum) --enablerepo=* clean all
if your intention is truly
Hi all,
[I posted this to the packaging list a few days ago, but haven't
gotten any responses, so I want to open this to a wider audience in
the hope of getting some pointers to what I'm missing.]
I'm trying to fix a problem with the git-svn package that causes it to
not pull in the proper
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 1:07 AM, Casper fan...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
Kevin Fenzi a écrit :
Greetings.
The following packages have been orphaned due to their former
maintainer removing themselves from the packager group:
NetPIPE
checkdns
taken, co-maintainers welcome
I might
I just found that auto requires no longer works as expected. My package
postgrey contains on binary writing in perl but auto requires returns
nothing.
I'm using rawhide, similar to f20 IMO.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
On 14 Jan 2014 06:04, David Airlie airl...@redhat.com wrote:
Hi all,
I've gotten a build tag f21-llvm for attempting to rebase rawhide to llvm
3.4
Assuming there aren't any major stumbling blocks, are there any plans to
back
port llvm 3.4 to f20 (like was done for
On 01/14/2014 08:11 PM, David Airlie wrote:
It looks like OpenGTL is going to be the sticking point,
upstream appears dead,
I'll go poke upstream tomorrow, to verify (un)dead status or not.
-- rex
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
On Tue, 2014-01-14 at 17:06 +, Peter Oliver wrote:
Step 13 of the New package process for existing contributors
(https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/New_package_process_for_existing_contributors)
is to push packages to updates-testing. Step 14 is to update comps.
Do I first need to wait for
On 01/15/2014 02:56 AM, Todd Zullinger wrote:
Hi all,
[I posted this to the packaging list a few days ago, but haven't gotten
any responses, so I want to open this to a wider audience in the hope of
getting some pointers to what I'm missing.]
I'm trying to fix a problem with the git-svn
Hi
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 2:28 AM, Panu Matilainen wrote:
See https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=105159.
That doesn't appear to be correct. Can you try again?
Rahul
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora
On 15 Jan 2014 02:11, David Airlie airl...@redhat.com wrote:
On 14 Jan 2014 06:04, David Airlie airl...@redhat.com wrote:
Hi all,
I've gotten a build tag f21-llvm for attempting to rebase rawhide
to llvm
3.4
Assuming there aren't any major stumbling blocks, are
Hi,
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 12:41:42PM -0800, Andrew Lutomirski wrote:
I have some trivial cleanups I want to make to a package a maintain.
These cleanups are trivial enough that I don't think they're worth a
new build. Should I commit them to the master branch?
The normal GIT approach
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 12:35:00PM -0700, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
1) Does providing python-3.4 mean that 3.4 will be the only python every
provided by EPEL?
On Fedora ew have a python package which points to the 2.7 series and a
python3 package which points to the 3.3 series of python. I
Hi,
This a headsup that there is a ghc refresh update for EPEL 5 now in testing:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2013-12484/ghc-7.0.4-45.3.el5,cabal-install-0.10.2-6.1.el5
This updates ghc from 6.12.3 to a bit more recent stable release,
which is also the currently the
Dear perl-LWP-Protocol-https package maintainer(s),
build of our package perl-WWW-Splunk in EPEL-7 depends on your package.
I'd be very thankful if you could request [1] a epel-7 branch for it and
do a build. If there's any reason you won't do it, please let me know
and I'd take care of the
Dear perl-SOAP-Lite package maintainer(s),
build of our package perl-WWW-Salesforce in EPEL-7 depends on your
package. I'd be very thankful if you could request [1] a epel-7 branch
for it and do a build. If there's any reason you won't do it, please let
me know and I'd take care of the epel-7
Dear perl-Data-Visitor package maintainer(s),
build of our package perl-Moose in EPEL-7 depends on your package. I'd
be very thankful if you could request [1] a epel-7 branch for it and do
a build. If there's any reason you won't do it, please let me know and
I'd take care of the epel-7 branch
Dear perl-Class-Accessor package maintainer(s),
build of our package in EPEL-7 depends on your package. I'd be very
thankful if you could request [1] a epel-7 branch for it and do a build.
If there's any reason you won't do it, please let me know and I'd take
care of the epel-7 branch myself.
commit e17570c9529dcadabd188dc193cddab9d44e30bd
Author: Petr Písař ppi...@redhat.com
Date: Tue Jan 14 09:17:28 2014 +0100
Use upstream patch to fix a test failure in perl5db.t when TERM=vt100
...able-ornaments-on-perl5db-AutoTrace-tests.patch | 57 ---
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1045912
--- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org ---
perl-DateTime-1.06-1.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 stable repository.
If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
--
You are receiving
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1051980
Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1045912
--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org ---
perl-DateTime-1.06-1.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository.
If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
--
You are receiving
commit 652d5108f69c51423376d35377e1491b716f0c9f
Author: Petr Písař ppi...@redhat.com
Date: Tue Jan 14 09:38:55 2014 +0100
Correct changelog format
perl-constant.spec |4 ++--
1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
---
diff --git a/perl-constant.spec b/perl-constant.spec
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1045912
--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org ---
perl-DateTime-1.06-1.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 stable repository.
If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
--
You are receiving
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1047216
--- Comment #2 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org ---
perl-Perl-Critic-Tics-0.008-1.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable
repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.
--
You are
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1052853
Bug ID: 1052853
Summary: Unnecessary dependencies
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Component: perl-Throwable
Assignee: iarn...@gmail.com
Reporter:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1051981
Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1052859
Bug ID: 1052859
Summary: Annoying dependency on Test::More
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Component: perl-Plack
Assignee: rc040...@freenet.de
Reporter:
The lightweight tag 'perl-Crypt-SmbHash-0.12-19.el7' was created pointing to:
3ecba71... - Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_19_Mass
--
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=1052709
--- Comment #1 from Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com ---
There is a discussion whether Fedora's RPM supports ppc64le as an
architecture identifier.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1052709
Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
commit 57625b2bdf1391d6a8733a4efd9bc7ca2551cf91
Author: Petr Písař ppi...@redhat.com
Date: Tue Jan 14 13:37:42 2014 +0100
Use a macro to cover all 64-bit PowerPC architectures
perl.spec |7 +--
1 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
---
diff --git a/perl.spec b/perl.spec
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1052709
Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
Fixed In
Summary of changes:
7a750d6... Perl 5.18 rebuild (*)
0527d0e... - Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_20_Mass (*)
3c1392d... update to 0.30 (*)
(*) This commit already existed in another branch; no separate mail sent
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
commit aa0a8d3af12cde136afd09a9f510c1917cbd1681
Author: Paul Howarth p...@city-fan.org
Date: Tue Jan 14 13:43:23 2014 +
Fix bogus date in changelog
perl-Mail-Sendmail.spec |2 +-
1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
---
diff --git a/perl-Mail-Sendmail.spec
1 - 100 of 138 matches
Mail list logo
