On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 8:35 PM, Reindl Harald <h.rei...@thelounge.net> wrote: > > > Am 10.03.2014 20:18, schrieb drago01: >> On Sun, Feb 23, 2014 at 6:12 PM, Reindl Harald <h.rei...@thelounge.net> >> wrote: >>> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-2922/libreoffice-4.2.1.1-1.fc20?_csrf_token=a6a024f6e2d35ad3f3333b8666c1244e215a6aa2 >>> >>> how can people pretend "installation went smoothly, no issue detected >>> during basic >>> document manipulation" for packages which are not installable at all due >>> dependencie problems? >> >> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/mesa-10.0.3-1.20140206.fc20 >> ... again broken dep and someone gave it +1 regardless. You should >> know that "someone" very well ;) >> >> Now seriously auto qa detected the broken dep. Maybe it should give >> negative karma even if there are false positives a wrong negative >> karma is not the end of the world ... > > yes i know that one well, that's why that one notified > here that rebuilds are needed > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1066718
OK, but then you should undo your +1 by adding a -1 (which means 0 instead of +1). -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
