Buchan Milne wrote:
On Thursday, 5 July 2012 20:34:02 David Walser wrote:
Guillaume Rousse wrote:
So, before any further contribution from my side, I'd like the people in
charge of security updates to find some internal agreement about what
kind of help they expect from other people
On Thursday, 5 July 2012 20:34:02 David Walser wrote:
Guillaume Rousse wrote:
So, before any further contribution from my side, I'd like the people in
charge of security updates to find some internal agreement about what
kind of help they expect from other people exactly. If that's just to
Regards,
Buchan
Buchan please refer here:
https://www.mageia.org/pipermail/mageia-dev/2012-July/017245.html
Thankyou.
On Fri, 06 Jul 2012, Claire Robinson wrote:
This has nothing to do with being rude.
As I said previously, this is being blown wildly out of proportion. In
reality it centres around one packager and two bugs. In both these bugs the
packager expected QA to validate updates where one was an
Op donderdag 5 juli 2012 20:34:08 schreef David Walser:
AL13N wrote:
this is a good point: BTW, a missing dependency should not be
considered a blocking issue as it can be easily fixed by the end user.
Especially for a security update, as he probably already done it.
also, not sure,
Op donderdag 5 juli 2012 23:52:39 schreef Claire Robinson:
On 05/07/12 23:34, nicolas vigier wrote:
On Thu, 05 Jul 2012, Claire Robinson wrote:
These recent attacks are causing even more work for us, which again helps
nobody, and diverts our attention away from where it is really needed.
Am 06.07.2012 08:18, schrieb AL13N:
Op donderdag 5 juli 2012 23:52:39 schreef Claire Robinson:
With respect Nicolas, you're not on the receiving end.
[...]
allthough i see badly worded(possibly to look offensive) sentences, i don't
think this is intentional, and more a problem of
On 06/07/12 07:56, Oliver Burger wrote:
Am 06.07.2012 08:18, schrieb AL13N:
Op donderdag 5 juli 2012 23:52:39 schreef Claire Robinson:
With respect Nicolas, you're not on the receiving end.
[...]
allthough i see badly worded(possibly to look offensive) sentences, i
don't
think this is
On 06/07/12 07:56, Oliver Burger wrote:
[...]
This has nothing to do with being rude.
IIUC, a small bit of it is related in 2 instances (from my pov):
- QA team being ignored in their question
- packager being doubted by QA team
(in some or other forms, both of these can be seen as rude)
Le 06/07/2012 13:19, AL13N a écrit :
On 06/07/12 07:56, Oliver Burger wrote:
[...]
This has nothing to do with being rude.
IIUC, a small bit of it is related in 2 instances (from my pov):
- QA team being ignored in their question
- packager being doubted by QA team
(in some or other
On 06/07/12 12:57, Guillaume Rousse wrote:
Le 06/07/2012 13:19, AL13N a écrit :
On 06/07/12 07:56, Oliver Burger wrote:
[...]
This has nothing to do with being rude.
IIUC, a small bit of it is related in 2 instances (from my pov):
- QA team being ignored in their question
- packager being
Le 04/07/2012 01:21, David Walser a écrit :
Sorry, think I've got them all now.
For avidemux and gstreamer0.10-ffmpeg in Mageia 1, it may be sufficient to
borrow the patches from the mplayer update.
For avidemux in Mageia 2, patches will need to be pulled from ffmpeg GIT.
Op donderdag 5 juli 2012 21:31:50 schreef Guillaume Rousse:
Le 04/07/2012 01:21, David Walser a écrit :
Sorry, think I've got them all now.
For avidemux and gstreamer0.10-ffmpeg in Mageia 1, it may be sufficient to
borrow the patches from the mplayer update.
For avidemux in Mageia
I spent some time today to help the QA team to manage those pending
security updates. And for the second time in a week, I've been facing
rather unpleasant attitude from someone else from the same team:
https://bugs.mageia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5939
I wonder how we're supposed to work together
On Thu, 05 Jul 2012, Guillaume Rousse wrote:
Le 04/07/2012 01:21, David Walser a écrit :
Sorry, think I've got them all now.
For avidemux and gstreamer0.10-ffmpeg in Mageia 1, it may be sufficient to
borrow the patches from the mplayer update.
For avidemux in Mageia 2, patches will need
On Thu, 05 Jul 2012, Claire Robinson wrote:
These recent attacks are causing even more work for us, which again helps
nobody, and diverts our attention away from where it is really needed. Also
I would point out that having to validate the same package several times
obviously lessens the
On 05/07/12 23:34, nicolas vigier wrote:
On Thu, 05 Jul 2012, Claire Robinson wrote:
These recent attacks are causing even more work for us, which again helps
nobody, and diverts our attention away from where it is really needed. Also
I would point out that having to validate the same package
AL13N a écrit :
Op donderdag 5 juli 2012 21:31:50 schreef Guillaume Rousse:
I spent some time today to help the QA team to manage those pending
security updates. And for the second time in a week, I've been facing
rather unpleasant attitude from someone else from the same team:
Guillaume Rousse wrote:
So, before any further contribution from my side, I'd like the people in
charge of security updates to find some internal agreement about what
kind of help they expect from other people exactly. If that's just to
push a non-discussable list of changes into spec
AL13N wrote:
this is a good point: BTW, a missing dependency should not be
considered a blocking issue as it can be easily fixed by the end user.
Especially for a security update, as he probably already done it.
also, not sure, but it seems the tester was unawere of perl-CGI-Fast being
not
Sorry, think I've got them all now.
For avidemux and gstreamer0.10-ffmpeg in Mageia 1, it may be sufficient to
borrow the patches from the mplayer update.
For avidemux in Mageia 2, patches will need to be pulled from ffmpeg GIT.
https://bugs.mageia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6427
21 matches
Mail list logo
