On Tue, Nov 27, 2007 at 05:16:49PM -0500, Tom spot Callaway wrote:
Tom Callaway (aka, no one asked for it explicitly)
* perl-Alien-wxWidgets -- Building, finding and using wxWidgets
binaries
* perl-AppConfig -- Perl module for reading configuration files
*
On Wed, 2007-11-28 at 03:58 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
Seems to me, as if Fedora doesn't support collective maintainership ://
Its a technicality. There is no difference in rights or permissions
between primary maintainers and comaintainers, except that the packagedb
requires there be a
On Wed, Nov 28, 2007 at 07:40:15AM -0500, Tom spot Callaway wrote:
On Wed, 2007-11-28 at 03:58 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
Seems to me, as if Fedora doesn't support collective maintainership ://
Its a technicality. There is no difference in rights or permissions
between primary
On Wed, 2007-11-28 at 14:05 +0100, Patrice Dumas wrote:
On Wed, Nov 28, 2007 at 07:40:15AM -0500, Tom spot Callaway wrote:
On Wed, 2007-11-28 at 03:58 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
Seems to me, as if Fedora doesn't support collective maintainership ://
Its a technicality. There is
On Wed, Nov 28, 2007 at 02:26:38PM +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
What I wanted to find is how Fedora supports and destinguishes:
a) a principal w/ several co-maintainers under his directions
b) free for a specific group with changing members
e.g. free for perl-sig, free for FPG, free for
On Wed, 2007-11-28 at 14:35 +0100, Patrice Dumas wrote:
Maybe the solution could simply be to be able to add some comments in the
pacakgedb, telling who is really allowed to touch the package?
and select 'group members can commit?'.
IMO, the easiest approach would be to use perl-sig or
On Wed, 2007-11-28 at 09:25 -0500, Tom spot Callaway wrote:
On Wed, 2007-11-28 at 14:46 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On Wed, 2007-11-28 at 14:35 +0100, Patrice Dumas wrote:
Maybe the solution could simply be to be able to add some comments in the
pacakgedb, telling who is really
On Wed, 2007-11-28 at 15:41 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On Wed, 2007-11-28 at 09:25 -0500, Tom spot Callaway wrote:
On Wed, 2007-11-28 at 14:46 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On Wed, 2007-11-28 at 14:35 +0100, Patrice Dumas wrote:
Maybe the solution could simply be to be able to
On Wed, Nov 28, 2007 at 09:46:32AM -0500, Tom spot Callaway wrote:
I don't have any problem with this. They'll show up in cpancheck as
packages that I need to fix. You're the one who is getting worked up
over technical limitations.
And where would one find this cpancheck that knows how to
On Wed, 2007-11-28 at 09:22 -0600, Steven Pritchard wrote:
On Wed, Nov 28, 2007 at 09:46:32AM -0500, Tom spot Callaway wrote:
I don't have any problem with this. They'll show up in cpancheck as
packages that I need to fix. You're the one who is getting worked up
over technical limitations.
On Nov 28, 2007 6:25 AM, Tom spot Callaway [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 2007-11-28 at 14:46 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On Wed, 2007-11-28 at 14:35 +0100, Patrice Dumas wrote:
Maybe the solution could simply be to be able to add some comments in the
pacakgedb, telling who is really
On Wed, 2007-11-28 at 08:09 -0800, Chris Weyl wrote:
I'm buying what Ralf is saying here: to attempt to have collective
ownership via individual ownership and extensive co-maintainers is
another variant of dirty hacks.
Of course, I may be totally misunderstanding how the systems work
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: EPEL Branch Request
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=401941
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
On Wed, 2007-11-28 at 09:22 -0600, Steven Pritchard wrote:
On Wed, Nov 28, 2007 at 09:46:32AM -0500, Tom spot Callaway wrote:
I don't have any problem with this. They'll show up in cpancheck as
packages that I need to fix. You're the one who is getting worked up
over technical limitations.
Looks like this didn't make it :)
-- Forwarded message --
From: Toshio Kuratomi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Nov 28, 2007 9:21 AM
Subject: Re: time for perl 5.10.x in devel?
To: Chris Weyl [EMAIL PROTECTED], fedora-perl-devel-list@redhat.com
Chris, if this bounces from the list,
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Please rebuild perl-MLDBM for EPEL 4 and 5
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=250873
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed
On Wed, Nov 28, 2007 at 01:05:45PM -0500, Tom spot Callaway wrote:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/UsefulScripts
That cpancheck seems fully capable of checking the packagedb.
I'll be damned. So it does.
Isn't collaborative development great? ;-)
Steve
--
Steven Pritchard
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Please rebuild perl-MLDBM for EPEL 4 and 5
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=250873
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-11-28
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Please rebuild perl-MLDBM for EPEL 4 and 5
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=250873
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-11-28
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: missing perl-Test-MinimumVersion
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=392341
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-11-28 20:32 EST
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Please rebuild perl-MLDBM for EPEL 4 and 5
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=250873
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-11-28
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: missing perl-Test-MinimumVersion
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=392331
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-11-28 20:44 EST
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: perl-Crypt-OpenSSL-AES-0.02 is available
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=389741
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-11-28
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: missing perl-Test-MinimumVersion
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=392301
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: missing perl-Test-MinimumVersion
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=398451
Bug 398451 depends on bug 392291, which changed state.
Bug 392291 Summary:
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: perl-File-Slurp: EL-4, EL-5 branches?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=237197
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Missing config.h
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=230689
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
27 matches
Mail list logo
