On 02/20/2014 11:50 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Thu, 2014-02-20 at 14:44 +, Colin Walters wrote:
On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 7:27 AM, Florian Festi ffe...@redhat.com
wrote:
We are currently working on adding weak and rich dependencies to
upstream RPM. There are basically two parts:
Is
Agenda:
- Discussion of Workstation Tech Spec[1][2] and define action items
for Base from it
- Open Floor
Thanks regards, Phil
[1]
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/desktop/2014-February/009136.html
[2] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Workstation/Technical_Specification
--
Hi,
devscript currently misses a depdendency on sensible-utils, which I've
now packaged and submitted for review:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1067917
The package is trivial.
Happy to review in exchange.
Thanks,
Sandro
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 02/21/2014 02:48 AM, Matthias Runge wrote:
On 02/20/2014 08:19 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
Just to bring this thread back to life, we're getting to a point
where support for Django 1.6 is becoming more and more
necessary. Is there an ETA
Hello,
the package cleanfeed is now orphaned. There are no comaintainers: Feel
free to take it.
Thanks and regards,
--
Tomáš Smetana
Platform Engineering, Red Hat
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct:
From: sgall...@redhat.com
Have we sorted out how exactly we want to build this in Fedora? I'm
still in favor of killing off the python-django package in favor of
python-django16 and python-django15.
I too would much prefer this approach. For somebody like me who wants to
maintain
commit 9677bdb741d0a59b026ec8e33e686e4840537790
Author: Petr Písař ppi...@redhat.com
Date: Fri Feb 21 14:42:08 2014 +0100
0.043 bump
perl-HTTP-Tiny.spec |5 -
1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
---
diff --git a/perl-HTTP-Tiny.spec b/perl-HTTP-Tiny.spec
index
Hi guys,
(note: devel, packaging and test lists) previously I've done a little experiment
and counted how many packages are likely to have upstream test suites and how
many don't:
http://atodorov.org/blog/2013/12/24/upstream-test-suite-status-of-fedora-20/
In general around 35% do have test
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1067879
Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |CLOSED
Fixed In
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 04:22:42PM +0200, Alexander Todorov wrote:
Hi guys,
(note: devel, packaging and test lists) previously I've done a
little experiment and counted how many packages are likely to have
upstream test suites and how many don't:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 02/21/2014 09:22 AM, Alexander Todorov wrote:
Hi guys, (note: devel, packaging and test lists) previously I've
done a little experiment and counted how many packages are likely
to have upstream test suites and how many don't:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1067882
--- Comment #1 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org ---
perl-WWW-Curl-4.16-1.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-WWW-Curl-4.16-1.fc20
--
You are receiving this mail
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 9:30 AM, Stephen Gallagher sgall...@redhat.com wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 02/21/2014 09:22 AM, Alexander Todorov wrote:
Hi guys, (note: devel, packaging and test lists) previously I've
done a little experiment and counted how many packages
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 9:30 AM, Stephen Gallagher sgall...@redhat.com wrote:
Please make sure to follow
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mass_bug_filing to the letter. If you
do not, it will make life very difficult.
Thanks, I'll take a look at it and follow it when it comes to mass filing of
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 09:38:56AM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 9:30 AM, Stephen Gallagher sgall...@redhat.com
wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 02/21/2014 09:22 AM, Alexander Todorov wrote:
Hi guys, (note: devel, packaging and test lists)
На 21.02.2014 16:27, Richard W.M. Jones написа:
Is it correct that you're only going to be filing bugs when upstream
tarballs already contain test suites, but they are just not enabled in
the Fedora package?
Hi Richard,
I meant just the opposite. However I will also do what you suggest but
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 9:50 AM, Daniel P. Berrange berra...@redhat.com wrote:
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 09:38:56AM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
That being said, a lot of packages in Fedora are simply that: packaged
upstreams. Many (most?) package maintainers are not developers of that
package
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 02/21/2014 09:51 AM, Alexander Todorov wrote:
На 21.02.2014 16:27, Richard W.M. Jones написа:
Is it correct that you're only going to be filing bugs when
upstream tarballs already contain test suites, but they are just
not enabled in the Fedora
On 21/02/14 14:51, Alexander Todorov wrote:
I want to track which packages *DO NOT* have any tests and later be able
to focus on creating them (be it working with volunteers, GSoC
participants or whoever is willing to step up to this task).
Why would you file a bug in the Fedora bug tracker
On Fri, 2014-02-21 at 16:51 +0200, Alexander Todorov wrote:
I want to track which packages *DO NOT* have any tests and later be able to
focus on creating them (be it working with volunteers, GSoC participants or
whoever is willing to step up to this task).
In that case, I suggest simply
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 04:22:42PM +0200, Alexander Todorov wrote:
Hi guys,
(note: devel, packaging and test lists) previously I've done a
little experiment and counted how many packages are likely to have
upstream test suites and how many don't:
На 21.02.2014 16:54, Stephen Gallagher написа:
Please do not file hundreds of bugs that will be closed WONTFIX. It's
a waste of everyone's time.
Hi Stephen,
how do you propose to track this then? I don't think a wiki page is more
comfortable than Bugzilla.
And why the heck would you CLOSE
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 02:53:55PM +, Tom Hughes wrote:
On 21/02/14 14:51, Alexander Todorov wrote:
I want to track which packages *DO NOT* have any tests and later be able
to focus on creating them (be it working with volunteers, GSoC
participants or whoever is willing to step up to
- Original Message -
From: Alexander Todorov atodo...@redhat.com
To: Discussion of RPM packaging standards and practices for Fedora
packag...@lists.fedoraproject.org,
Development discussions related to Fedora devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Cc: For testing and quality assurance of
On 21/02/14 14:57, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 02:53:55PM +, Tom Hughes wrote:
On 21/02/14 14:51, Alexander Todorov wrote:
I want to track which packages *DO NOT* have any tests and later be able
to focus on creating them (be it working with volunteers, GSoC
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 9:56 AM, Alexander Todorov atodo...@redhat.com wrote:
На 21.02.2014 16:54, Stephen Gallagher написа:
Please do not file hundreds of bugs that will be closed WONTFIX. It's
a waste of everyone's time.
Hi Stephen,
how do you propose to track this then? I don't think a
На 21.02.2014 16:53, Tom Hughes написа:
Why would you file a bug in the Fedora bug tracker when the package has no test
suite upstream? That makes no sense - if the upstream package has no tests then
the bug belongs upstream not in Fedora.
Same reason you file kernel bugs in
На 21.02.2014 16:55, Daniel P. Berrange написа:
If you have code that can fairly reliably detect whether a test suite
exists in the source tar.gz, then I think you would be justified
in filing bugs for spec files which have not enabled the test suite.
At present I'm aware of 11 different
- Original Message -
From: Josh Boyer jwbo...@fedoraproject.org
To: Daniel P. Berrange berra...@redhat.com, Development discussions
related to Fedora
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Sent: Friday, February 21, 2014 4:53:03 PM
Subject: Re: May I file 1000 bugs aka upstream test suite
On 02/21/2014 03:51 PM, Alexander Todorov wrote:
На 21.02.2014 16:27, Richard W.M. Jones написа:
Is it correct that you're only going to be filing bugs when upstream
tarballs already contain test suites, but they are just not enabled in
the Fedora package?
Hi Richard,
I meant just the
Am 21.02.2014 15:51, schrieb Alexander Todorov:
На 21.02.2014 16:27, Richard W.M. Jones написа:
Is it correct that you're only going to be filing bugs when upstream
tarballs already contain test suites, but they are just not enabled in
the Fedora package?
I want to track which packages
На 21.02.2014 16:58, Tom Hughes написа:
On 21/02/14 14:57, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 02:53:55PM +, Tom Hughes wrote:
On 21/02/14 14:51, Alexander Todorov wrote:
I want to track which packages *DO NOT* have any tests and later be able
to focus on creating them (be
On 02/21/2014 03:53 PM, Josh Boyer wrote:
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 9:50 AM, Daniel P. Berrange berra...@redhat.com wrote:
If the maintainer is including any non-trivial patches that I think that
enabling %check should almost be mandatory to ensure they are not causing
regressions through their
Looks like reporting missing test suites in Bugzilla is not accepted. I guess
it's just me who prefers Bugzilla compared to other media.
I *will use the Wiki* for this.
On the topic of tests not executed in %check I *will use Bugzilla* but Alexander
Kurtakov brings up another angle - tests
On Friday, 21 February 2014 at 16:08, Alexander Todorov wrote:
[...]
Guys I can do both.
1) Report packages which *have* test suites but they are *not* executed in
%check
2) Report packages which *don't* have any test suites at all.
1) is easy but I'm more interested in 2)
Could you
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 02:50:12PM +, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 09:38:56AM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
Personally, I don't think %check is a good idea at all.
I think the benefit depends on the level of patching the Fedora maintainer
is doing. If they are shipping
На 21.02.2014 17:16, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski написа:
On Friday, 21 February 2014 at 16:08, Alexander Todorov wrote:
[...]
Guys I can do both.
1) Report packages which *have* test suites but they are *not* executed in
%check
2) Report packages which *don't* have any test suites at all.
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 04:19:29PM +0100, Miroslav Lichvar wrote:
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 02:50:12PM +, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 09:38:56AM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
Personally, I don't think %check is a good idea at all.
I think the benefit depends on the
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 7:09 AM, Jeff Sheltren j...@tag1consulting.comwrote:
On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 7:47 PM, Dave Johansen davejohan...@gmail.comwrote:
Yes, waiting did work for that issue (
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2014-February/195156.html),
but this is another
On Fri, 2014-02-21 at 08:40 -0500, john.flor...@dart.biz wrote:
From: sgall...@redhat.com
Have we sorted out how exactly we want to build this in Fedora? I'm
still in favor of killing off the python-django package in favor of
python-django16 and python-django15.
I too would much
On 2/21/14, 9:25 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 04:19:29PM +0100, Miroslav Lichvar wrote:
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 02:50:12PM +, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 09:38:56AM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
Personally, I don't think %check is a good idea at
Main meeting agenda for today was a discussion about the Workstation
Tech Spec and any implications, changes or actions it would require from
Base.
Matthias Clasen from the Workstaing WG joined us today and every a long
discussion and review specifically around the Core Services and
I've got a few comments and questions about the recently filed bugs asking
us to switch from Requires: java to Requires: java-headless. First, the
bugs list some web pages to view for more information. Number two on that
list is this:
On 02/21/2014 09:31 AM, Jerry James wrote:
Third, developers are offered two options in those bugs: (1) don't do anything
and an automatic tool will make the change for you on or after March 17, or
(2) make the change to java-headless yourself. I have one package for which I
need a third
Hi Jerry,
Closing as notabug is perfectly valid solution in your case. I also have a
bunch of such packages myself. The thing is that there is no way for this to
have been known by the automated tool thus we end up with such false positives.
I have to also add that the percentage of false
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 08:40:52AM -0500, john.flor...@dart.biz wrote:
I too would much prefer this approach. For somebody like me who wants to
maintain company-private packages based on django, this affords more
flexibility. I realize it may always mean more packaging work to keep
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 10:36:24AM -0500, Simo Sorce wrote:
+1 I still have an application that is slowly moving to 1.5 but not
there yet and it is painful to have to keep an older Fedora Version
running just because of that.
I hear you! My current plan would be, to provide at least a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 02/21/2014 01:14 PM, Matthias Runge wrote:
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 10:36:24AM -0500, Simo Sorce wrote:
+1 I still have an application that is slowly moving to 1.5 but
not there yet and it is painful to have to keep an older Fedora
Version
On Fri, 2014-02-21 at 16:48 +0200, Alexander Todorov wrote:
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 9:30 AM, Stephen Gallagher sgall...@redhat.com
wrote:
Please make sure to follow
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mass_bug_filing to the letter. If you
do not, it will make life very difficult.
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 07:57:34AM -0500, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
Have we sorted out how exactly we want to build this in Fedora? I'm
still in favor of killing off the python-django package in favor of
python-django16 and python-django15.
We haven't sorted this yet. Still I'd prefer a kind of
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 01:28:54PM -0500, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
On 02/21/2014 01:14 PM, Matthias Runge wrote:
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 10:36:24AM -0500, Simo Sorce wrote:
+1 I still have an application that is slowly moving to 1.5 but
not there yet and it is painful to have to keep an
Hi folks,
I will orphan my packages, because I have no time to shoulder
the responsibility of my packages anymore.
FEDORA:
fife -- Cross platform game creation framework
florence -- Extensible scalable on-screen virtual keyboard for GNOME
opentracker -- Bit Torrent Tracker
libowfat --
On Fri, 2014-02-21 at 13:28 -0500, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 02/21/2014 01:14 PM, Matthias Runge wrote:
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 10:36:24AM -0500, Simo Sorce wrote:
+1 I still have an application that is slowly moving to 1.5 but
not there
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 02/21/2014 01:58 PM, Simo Sorce wrote:
On Fri, 2014-02-21 at 13:28 -0500, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1
On 02/21/2014 01:14 PM, Matthias Runge wrote:
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 10:36:24AM -0500, Simo
Hello
I'm orphaning greybird[1] theme suite for Xfce due to lack of free time.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/acls/name/greybird
Thanks.
-- Athmane
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct:
From: mru...@matthias-runge.de
Date: 02/21/2014 13:11
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 08:40:52AM -0500, john.flor...@dart.biz wrote:
I too would much prefer this approach. For somebody like me who wants
to
maintain company-private packages based on django, this affords more
flexibility. I
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 02/21/2014 02:06 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
On 02/21/2014 01:58 PM, Simo Sorce wrote:
On Fri, 2014-02-21 at 13:28 -0500, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1
On 02/21/2014 01:14 PM, Matthias Runge wrote:
From: sgall...@redhat.com
To: devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Date: 02/21/2014 14:41
Subject: Re: python-django update to Django-1.6
Sent by: devel-boun...@lists.fedoraproject.org
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 02/21/2014 02:06 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
On
On Fri, 21 Feb 2014 20:25:01 +0100
Athmane Madjoudj athm...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
Hello
I'm orphaning greybird[1] theme suite for Xfce due to lack of free
time.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/acls/name/greybird
I'll take it.
Co-maintainers welcome.
kevin
signature.asc
On Fri, 21 Feb 2014 14:55:48 +, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
If you have code that can fairly reliably detect whether a test suite
exists in the source tar.gz, then I think you would be justified
in filing bugs for spec files which have not enabled the test suite.
It would need to be a test
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1068742
Nathanael Noblet nathan...@gnat.ca changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||fedora-cvs?
---
On Fri, 2014-02-21 at 17:08 +0100, Phil Knirsch wrote:
Installer is still a hot topic, but thats nothing we could resolve
during our meeting and which might have to be brought up with FESCO again.
So, as cmurf has been trying to point out on desktop@ , we (QA) have
some concerns in this area
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 02:41:31PM -0500, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
I'm having a parallel conversation about this with Toshio on
#fedora-devel right now. He believes it may be possible to get
Django to be parallel-installable on the base system without SCLs
and is running some tests.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 02/21/2014 02:41 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
On 02/21/2014 02:06 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
On 02/21/2014 01:58 PM, Simo Sorce wrote:
On Fri, 2014-02-21 at 13:28 -0500, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1
From: awill...@redhat.com
Date: 02/21/2014 15:20
Historically, QA and anaconda more or less agreed on an approach whereby
the 'guided' partitioning path would be expected to work extremely
reliably: QA would undertake to test every (well, nearly every) route
through that path regularly and
On Fri, 2014-02-21 at 16:38 -0500, john.flor...@dart.biz wrote:
With the best of intentions, we'd gone from a reluctant exception to the
'no choice' design to a dropdown which included two very different
complex choices: LVM and btrfs. So now the installer path which was
originally
Colin Walters wrote:
That would mean that if we wanted to enable a new service by default,
admins wouldn't get it on upgrades.
… which is how it should be. I don't want upgrades to mess with my set of
enabled services. (E.g., I found it extremely rude from firewalld to enable
itself by
Adam Williamson wrote:
Very much +1. Putting it in kickstarts is a worse tying problem than
putting it in a package: it ties this configuration mechanism to a
system for creating deliverables, which is what kickstart is. We need to
be moving away from having configuration in kickstarts, not
Am 21.02.2014 23:30, schrieb Kevin Kofler:
Colin Walters wrote:
That would mean that if we wanted to enable a new service by default,
admins wouldn't get it on upgrades.
… which is how it should be. I don't want upgrades to mess with my set of
enabled services. (E.g., I found it extremely
Sandro Mani wrote:
This is what I have now [1].
[1] http://smani.fedorapeople.org/salome/salome-kernel-7.3.0/
The string kernel module in the summaries and descriptions is misleading.
(It can mislead users into thinking this is a module for the Linux kernel,
when actually this is just the core
Dennis Gilmore wrote:
should be a absolute non starter, many installs happen interactively
and would never get the file
At least 2 possible solutions:
(a) Write the file in Anaconda (at least for non-live installs, live
installs can and should get it from the spin kickstart), add a spoke to
commit a8541a82c79c7fa874e74b356e3bcecb000af8ec
Author: David Dick dd...@cpan.org
Date: Sat Feb 22 09:46:52 2014 +1100
Initial import (#1066842).
.gitignore |1 +
perl-Net-SMTPS.spec | 69 +++
sources |1 +
3
On 21.02.2014 23:23, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Sandro Mani wrote:
This is what I have now [1].
[1] http://smani.fedorapeople.org/salome/salome-kernel-7.3.0/
The string kernel module in the summaries and descriptions is misleading.
(It can mislead users into thinking this is a module for the Linux
# Fedora Quality Assurance Meeting
# Date: 2014-02-24
# Time: 16:00 UTC
(https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Infrastructure/UTCHowto)
# Location: #fedora-meeting on irc.freenode.net
Greetings testers!
It's meeting time again on Monday! .next efforts are ramping up again,
with the WGs starting to talk
Vivek Goyal wrote:
What is fast forwarding commits from f21 to f20. I guess you are saying
there are bunch of commits in master branch and you want to now apply
those commits to f20 branch too?
Fast-forwarding is git jargon for doing a merge that simply accepts ALL
commits from master into
(I'm going to reply to the grandparent post here too, to avoid sending 2
separate mails.)
On 02/20/2014 11:50 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
Fedora isn't signed up to *use* it yet. We can still make the choice
whether we want to or not, I believe.
IMHO, we definitely want to use these features!
Alexander Todorov wrote:
My question is:
**Is everyone, especially package maintainers OK with me filing 1000+ bugs
?**
NO!
Especially not for something like this. There is no requirement for a test
suite to exist, and there should not be such a requirement. If the test
suite does not exist
On Feb 21, 2014, at 2:38 PM, john.flor...@dart.biz wrote:
That makes a lot of sense, but I'd like to add that when doing custom
partitioning, you can easily spend the bulk of your actual interaction time
getting the partitioning customized exactly the way you want and when
anaconda
Hi!
I submitted update for tcllib 1.11 - 1.15. If your software use it please
test for compatibility and in case of problem feel free to decrease the karma.
Dmitrij.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of
Thanks for your hard work on these packages in the past.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 7:47 PM, Dave Johansen davejohan...@gmail.comwrote:
Yes, waiting did work for that issue (
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2014-February/195156.html),
but this is another issue and appears to that the building of the source
.rpm isn't working properly
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 7:28 AM, Dave Johansen davejohan...@gmail.comwrote:
Doh! The original email in this chain was a copy and paste/stupid user
error on my part. No, I no longer get that issue with the llvm build and
like Kevin pointed out, just waiting worked.
But I sent two emails this
On Fri, 21 Feb 2014 08:28:24 -0700
Dave Johansen davejohan...@gmail.com wrote:
Doh! The original email in this chain was a copy and paste/stupid user
error on my part. No, I no longer get that issue with the llvm build
and like Kevin pointed out, just waiting worked.
But I sent two emails
A file has been added to the lookaside cache for perl-Text-Xslate:
a785599c4087cc704a389b11a56bbe9c Text-Xslate-3.1.2.tar.gz
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
perl-devel mailing list
perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
A file has been added to the lookaside cache for perl-HTTP-Soup:
24a81ea1b7edd7902a32427f33830fb5 HTTP-Soup-0.01.tar.gz
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
perl-devel mailing list
perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
commit 9b4f39e2674d9d37f501c58ea67f18f93740effd
Author: Christopher Meng i...@cicku.me
Date: Fri Feb 21 16:14:39 2014 +0800
Update to 3.1.2
.gitignore|1 +
perl-Text-Xslate.spec |7 +--
sources |2 +-
3 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 3
commit 73f220b349500350fec2fce4839b59e3ec8771d2
Author: David Dick dd...@cpan.org
Date: Fri Feb 21 19:14:48 2014 +1100
Initial import (#1064817).
.gitignore |1 +
perl-HTTP-Soup.spec | 61 +++
sources |1 +
3
Summary of changes:
73f220b... Initial import (#1064817). (*)
(*) 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
commit eabce0274c73f42c601ea6dadf0782f47741ee3a
Author: Christopher Meng i...@cicku.me
Date: Fri Feb 21 16:35:48 2014 +0800
Add missing Test::LeakTrace.
perl-Text-Xslate.spec |6 +-
1 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
---
diff --git a/perl-Text-Xslate.spec
Summary of changes:
eabce02... Add missing Test::LeakTrace. (*)
(*) 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:
9b4f39e... Update to 3.1.2 (*)
eabce02... Add missing Test::LeakTrace.
(*) 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-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
dspam has broken dependencies in the epel-7 tree:
On x86_64:
dspam-3.10.2-9.el7.x86_64 requires perl(Mail::MboxParser)
On ppc64:
dspam-3.10.2-9.el7.ppc64 requires perl(Mail::MboxParser)
Please resolve this as soon as possible.
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
stompclt has broken dependencies in the epel-7 tree:
On x86_64:
stompclt-1.1-1.el7.noarch requires perl(Net::STOMP::Client) = 0:2.0
On ppc64:
stompclt-1.1-1.el7.noarch requires perl(Net::STOMP::Client) = 0:2.0
Please resolve this as soon as possible.
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1067875
Bug ID: 1067875
Summary: perl-ExtUtils-MakeMaker-6.90 is available
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Component: perl-ExtUtils-MakeMaker
Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1067877
Bug ID: 1067877
Summary: perl-HTTP-Tiny-0.043 is available
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Component: perl-HTTP-Tiny
Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged
Assignee:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1067878
Bug ID: 1067878
Summary: perl-Log-Contextual-0.006002 is available
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Component: perl-Log-Contextual
Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1067879
Bug ID: 1067879
Summary: perl-Module-Load-0.32 is available
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Component: perl-Module-Load
Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged
Assignee:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=902236
Upstream Release Monitoring upstream-release-monitor...@fedoraproject.org
changed:
What|Removed |Added
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1067881
Bug ID: 1067881
Summary: perl-Software-License-0.103009 is available
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Component: perl-Software-License
Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged
1 - 100 of 162 matches
Mail list logo
