2008/10/29 Thorsten Leemhuis [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Which BTW brings us to the question: how do we want to handle testing in
the future?
Yep and I remember to have asked the same question worded like this:
Do updates-testing behaviours ends to be like it was with livna or with fedora?
The push
Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
On 30.10.2008 10:12, KH KH wrote:
But what is needed actually is a way to also propose an update to
0.9.x. Can I handle that with the rpmfusion-free-updates-testing
repository? It will lead to have two parallels cvs (F-8 F-8.testing
like it was with livna), because it
On 30.10.2008 10:53, Andrea Musuruane wrote:
2008/10/29 Thorsten Leemhuis [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Hi!
Seems a lot of people missed below part of a mail that I send to this list a
few days ago. At least nobody answered, which I think is a bit astounding,
as it's afaics a delicate topic...
I think
2008/10/30 Andrea Musuruane [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
2008/10/29 Thorsten Leemhuis [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
BTW, does anybody want to prepare the two announcement mails for Monday
(more a PR style RPM Fusion launched) and Tuesday (for the fedora-announce
mailing list)?
I'll try to write down something :)
2008/10/30 Hans de Goede [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
On 30.10.2008 10:12, KH KH wrote:
But what is needed actually is a way to also propose an update to
0.9.x. Can I handle that with the rpmfusion-free-updates-testing
repository? It will lead to have two parallels cvs (F-8
On Thu, 30 Oct 2008 11:00:49 +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
There are also some
push script locking issues that mschwendt pointed out; those should get
fixed, otherwise there is a risk that different people try to push at
the same time which could skrew things up.
More important than
Andrea Musuruane wrote:
2008/10/30 Andrea Musuruane [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
2008/10/29 Thorsten Leemhuis [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
BTW, does anybody want to prepare the two announcement mails for Monday
(more a PR style RPM Fusion launched) and Tuesday (for the fedora-announce
mailing list)?
I'll try to
2008/10/30 Hans de Goede [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Looks ok, but I have the feeling it needs a higher advertising rate.
I'm thinking about adding things like: Do you want playback of various
multimedia formats to work painlessly
Are you stuck with an nvidea card and do you want to use 3D?
I
On Thu, 30 Oct 2008 11:48:16 +0100, KH KH wrote:
I don't mind the technical behind this., was about the behaviour.
If i cannot get that behaviour with having two parallels branches,
then that's easy, there will be no vlc-0.9.x updates for F-8
That's not that important in that case but others
2008/10/30 Michael Schwendt [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
...
Rule of thumb: Use development for the somewhat experimental stuff as long
as the freeze is far away. The more dependencies, the higher the risk for
major version upgrades in stable. They are not worth the trouble.
Updates-testing is not
On Thu, 30 Oct 2008 13:19:57 +0100, KH KH wrote:
I was suggesting to duplicate the buildsys (cvs builroot etc) to
another repository as described here:
http://lists.rpmfusion.org/pipermail/rpmfusion-developers/2008-October/001507.html
That's not a problem with following Fedora rules, but
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=104
Summary: Review Request: xorg-x11-drv-nvidia-newest - NVIDIA's
newest proprietary display driver for NVIDIA graphic
cards
Product: Package Reviews
Version: Current
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=105
Summary: Review Request: nvidia-newest-kmod - NVIDIA's newest
display driver kernel module
Product: Package Reviews
Version: Current
Platform: All
OS/Version: GNU/Linux
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=106
Summary: Review Request: nvdia-beta-kmod - NVIDIA's beta display
driver kernel module
Product: Package Reviews
Version: Current
Platform: All
OS/Version: GNU/Linux
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=107
Summary: Review Request: xorg-x11-drv-nvidia-beta - NVIDIA's beta
proprietary display driver for NVIDIA graphic cards
Product: Package Reviews
Version: Current
Platform: All
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=106
NicolasChauvet [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on||107
--
Configure
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=106
Jochen Schmitt [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=106
Erik van Pienbroek [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||erik-
On Thu, 30 Oct 2008 16:12:35 +0100, KH KH wrote:
On Thu, 30 Oct 2008 13:19:57 +0100, KH KH wrote:
I was suggesting to duplicate the buildsys (cvs builroot etc) to
another repository as described here:
http://lists.rpmfusion.org/pipermail/rpmfusion-developers/2008-October/001507.html
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=96
Thorsten Leemhuis [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=96
--- Comment #7 from Chris Nolan [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-30 19:49:38 ---
(In reply to comment #4)
So I did briefly poke last night. Unfortunately, nothing I do seems to make
any
significant difference to improve my throughput. For the
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=96
--- Comment #8 from Thorsten Leemhuis [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-30 20:25:39
---
What is the reasoning behind using two SRPMs when one seems to do the job?
Two reasons:
(1) It prevents that the package with that contains the userland part
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=96
--- Comment #9 from Chris Nolan [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-30 22:55:32 ---
(In reply to comment #8)
What is the reasoning behind using two SRPMs when one seems to do the job?
Two reasons:
(1) It prevents that the package with that
23 matches
Mail list logo
