Re: big gnome update
On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 2:59 PM, Matthias Clasen wrote: > Hey, > > I've spent most of yesterday rebuilding things against gtk2, and > downgrading packages that needed it, so there is now a big update that > brings the gnome in f14 onto the 2.32 track. This update should fix most > of the 'mixed gtk2/gtk3' and dconf problems that have been plaguing f14 > recently. The one thing still missing is empathy, where the 2.31 version > needs a new package that is still under review. Was gnome-python2-evince added back into the fold as part of this work? Regards, Peter -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: Why was a kernel-2.6.34 pushed to updates that had un-addressed bugs.
On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 3:12 AM, Rodd Clarkson wrote: > > > On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 11:58 AM, Adam Williamson > wrote: >> >> On Thu, 2010-09-02 at 11:00 +1000, Rodd Clarkson wrote: >> > Hi all, >> > >> > Why was kernel-2.6.34.x pushed to updates in f13 when three people had >> > reported suspend issues with the kernel and no attempt was made to >> > address these issues. >> > >> > see: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=615560 >> > >> > I >> > Rodd >> >> Because there are always suspend issues, kernel team doesn't consider >> suspend problems a blocker for release. > > Sure, my problem lies not it that fact that there are suspend issues, but in > that no attempt was even made to address the suspend issues. > > My system suspends and resumes fine on f13 with the 2.6.33 kernels, so it > isn't unreasonable to expect this functionality to continue on a stable > release. On the other hand the 2.6.34 kernel has made my F-13 laptop 100% more usable than the entire release. I've been having massive issues and I've been actually meaning to reinstall F-12 but haven't actually had the time to do so. It got pushed from updates-testing to updates very quickly because a lot of people tested it before it even hit updates-testing and hence got the karma required to go through to updates very quickly. Peter -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: [Test-Announce] Systemd Test Day on Tuesday 2010/09/07
On Mon, Sep 6, 2010 at 3:41 PM, Richard Hughes wrote: > On 6 September 2010 15:30, Bruno Wolff III wrote: >> Note that there is an update pending for systemd-9-3 that isn't going to >> show up in the nightly builds until the following dep issues are fixed: >> manager-2.31.4-1.fc14.i686 requires libgnome-control-center.so.1 >> gnome-packagekit-2.31.4-2.fc14.i686 requires libgnome-control-center.so.1 >> They are blocking rebuilds of the Desktop spin (and others). > > That's rawhide, no? F14 should be good to go. No, its F-14 and had been broken since Aug 31st. The last good compose of gnome based (as in have gnome components) spins was Aug 30th. You can see it in the daily branched report [1]. Regards, Peter [1] http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2010-September/142421.html -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: 64bit Flash player
On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 8:13 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Wed, 2010-07-07 at 20:31 +0200, birger wrote: >> The claim i saw was that they had chosen to redesign the 64 bit flash >> completely. >> >> Given that windows seems to be quickly abandoning 32 bit support >> (first on servers) a completely rewritten 64 bit flash makes sense >> even if it means more maintenance. It may mean that 32 bit flash >> becomes a light version for netbooks, pads and phones. >> >> During such redevelopment it makes sense to release only for the big >> platform. I assume that doesn't mean the new 64 bit engine will be >> difficult to port ( hopefully the opposite). Just that it wont happen >> yet. > > Except that they're not releasing any 64-bit build for _any_ platform. > They never released one for Windows, and haven't done for 10.1. > > Given that they're not releasing anything and the code is closed, they > can make any excuse they like about how they're rewriting it, no-one can > verify that. The fact remains that they provided a 64-bit build which > seemed to work rather well, many people came to use it, and now instead > of fixing a known security issue in it - it's hard to imagine the fix > can be much different in the 64-bit code from the 32-bit - they > completely withdrew the build. I would suggest looking at lightspark. Its currently in review [1] in rpmfusion and it probably the current best chance at a half decent open source flash plugin. Its a pity it uses ffmpeg directly rather than gstreamer as with WebM coming to youtube and other sites it would then be possible to have it in fedora mainstream and youtube out of the box! Peter [1] https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1313 -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: Broken dependencies with Fedora 13 + updates-testing - 2010-07-09
On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 10:17 AM, Michael Schwendt wrote: > The following packages in the repository suffer from broken dependencies: > > == > The results in this summary consider Test Updates! > == > > package: syncevolution-0.9.2+1.0alpha1-1.fc13.i686 from fedora-13-x86_64 > unresolved deps: > libedataserver-1.2.so.11 I'm not sure where this dep is getting pulled in from as the current version in F-13 is 1.0-3 Peter -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: Broken dependencies with Fedora 13 + updates-testing - 2010-07-09
On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 1:05 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote: > On Fri, 9 Jul 2010 10:50:01 +0100, pbrobinson wrote: > >> > The following packages in the repository suffer from broken dependencies: >> > >> > == >> > The results in this summary consider Test Updates! >> > == >> > >> > package: syncevolution-0.9.2+1.0alpha1-1.fc13.i686 from fedora-13-x86_64 >> > unresolved deps: >> > libedataserver-1.2.so.11 >> >> I'm not sure where this dep is getting pulled in from as the current >> version in F-13 is 1.0-3 > > Let me reduce the information in an attempt to show how to interpret above > quote: > > syncevolution.i686 from fedora-13-x86_64 > > That's multiarch breakage! Fedora 13 was released with syncevolution.i686 in > the x86_64 repo, and the 1.0-3 update did not place its i686 pkg in the > x86_64 updates repo. Anyone with the old syncevolution installed as both > i686 and x86_64 would see the unresolvable dependency. > > Questions: Have you changed the dependency-chain? Or has "mash" changed its > multiarch compose strategy? (same question related to F12 "perl") I think the libs were split out into a subpackage so that those that wished to use them didn't have to pull in the full dep chain. That would have been the only change I'm aware of. Peter -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: celt test update? - bodhi mystery
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 9:14 AM, Andre Robatino wrote: > The same problem also exists in F12 x86_64. Are broken dependencies in > updates-testing normally ignored? There was an issue with a bodhi push which caused this problem. celt was never meant to be pushed (it was removed long before a pushed started) and it was manually fixed up for F-13. I'd assumed the same had happened for F-12 (or the issues didn't happen there) but because bodhi doesn't think it happened I can't unpush it so someone in rel-eng will need to. I think Luke did it for F-13. Cheers, Peter -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: After upgrade to F14, LUKS partition apparently unreadable
On Sun, Aug 1, 2010 at 3:29 PM, Adam Huffman wrote: > I've entered bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=620202 as > I can no longer boot Fedora on my laptop, after finding a LUKS error > with the F14 kernel. > > Not a big problem for me as there's nothing significant stored on the > laptop but this would be pretty serious for a normal upgrade. Yes but a big problem if you have a requirement to encrypt your root partition or the entire install. Sounds like an alpha blocker to me. Peter -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: [Test-Announce] Fedora 14 Alpha TC2 Is Uploading Now!
On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 6:30 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: > Greetings Testers, > > F-14 Alpha TC2 is being posted for testing: > > * http://serverbeach1.fedoraproject.org/pub/alt/stage/14.TC2/ > > It's still synchronizing right now, but should be fully available very > soon. This one actually works! Or so I'm told. Unfortunately not for me. I'm using the Fedora-14-x86_64-netinst.iso on a KVM VM and just doing a standard "blat the disk and use the defaults" install and anaconda crashes. I'm not sure if there's a bug for this but I have a traceback as soon as I can work out how to cut and paste it out of the VM console. Peter -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: [Test-Announce] Fedora 14 Alpha RC1 Available Now!
On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 10:13 AM, He Rui wrote: > On Fri, 2010-08-06 at 14:08 +0800, He Rui wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> There's a kernel panic in the first stage of anaconda in x86_64 boot.iso >> (probably in other x86_64 images as well): >> >> Bug 621775 - kernel panic- not syncing: VFS : unable to mount root fs on >> unknown-block(9,2) >> > > Confirmed it in x86_64 DVD.iso. Note that i386 system boots normally. I can confirm this using Fedora-14-Alpha-x86_64-netinst.iso on a 64 bit KVM VM as well. Peter -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
