On 11/07/10 05:13, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Providing a patch is actually hard. Reporting a bug in the upstream bug
> tracker is just a matter of filling out the form, if the reporter refuses to
> do that, it's only pure laziness.
>
> Kevin Kofler
>
It could be fear.
"Do these people (upstr
> "NB" == Neal Becker writes:
NB> dblatex is up for grabs. -- devel mailing list
I'll take dblatex. Doesn't seem to be orphaned in pkgdb yet, though.
Alex
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
hi,
I'd like to confirm if I can approve recoll[1] which uses some build
deps that it ships in the tar itself. Namely, "unac" and "binc imap".
> > 1. I see a unac directory with a "stripped down version of unac". You need
> to
> > package unac separately and add it as a build requires IMO.
>
.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
On 2010/07/11 06:13 (GMT+0200) Kevin Kofler composed:
> Reporting a bug in the upstream bug
> tracker is just a matter of filling out the form, if the reporter refuses to
> do that, it's only pure laziness.
To one who has no bug tracker account upstream, it's not just a matter of
filling out "t
Matt McCutchen wrote:
> I don't know if Fedora has an official stance documented somewhere, but
> I personally would support Eric's viewpoint. A Fedora maintainer should
> be responsible for all the bugs in the package, even if that just means
> forwarding them upstream. Reporters are encouraged
Matt McCutchen wrote:
> If you're suggesting that an upstream bug report is information needed
> to understand a Fedora bug, that's absurd. It's a step taken to resolve
> the bug. Would you mark a bug INSUFFICIENT_DATA because the reporter
> didn't provide a patch?
Providing a patch is actually
On Sat, 2010-07-10 at 14:35 -0400, Eric "Sparks" Christensen wrote:
> On 07/10/2010 01:37 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> > Those bugs should be reported upstream, and such was requested in the bug
> > report. The reporters outright refused to report the bugs upstream, thus
> > it's normal to close the
On Sat, 2010-07-10 at 19:40 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> INSUFFICIENT_DATA, the standard resolution for unanswered needinfo requests,
> is the best resolution to use if the reporter refuses to file the bug
> upstream. (The data missing is a link to a properly filed upstream bug
> report.)
If yo
On Jul 10, 2010 6:35 PM, "Kevin Kofler" wrote:
Ian Weller wrote: > I know a lot of others also have their own checklists,
but I don't know > if it'...
Mine is there: http://fpaste.org/QhFD/ but you need to fill in that CAPTCHA
because the 1 day maximum expiration time already expired.
It should
Hi,
At the end of next week, Novell will be releasing the new version of
mono (2.6.7).
I'm currently building it for rawhide (well, the release candidate). The
new version fixes lots of bugs and is generally a damned sight faster
than previous versions.
Also being built : libgdiplus, xsp, mod_m
On Sat, Jul 10, 2010 at 12:29 PM, Carl Gaudreault
wrote:
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=531464#c29
I appreciate the effort to be more explicit in your reasoning by
adding an additional comment in response to this out-of-ticket
dicussion.
That being said. I really really think that
Jeff Spaleta wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 3:34 PM, Carl Gaudreault
> wrote:
>>>So It seems Carl G. has been closing several bugs across
multiple
>>>components without comment recently. Hmm.Not cool.
>>
>> -jef
>>
>> I gave the reason why i closed it.
>
> Are you saying that you comment
2010/7/10 pbrobin...@gmail.com :
> On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 5:28 PM, Chen Lei wrote:
>> 2010/7/9 pbrobin...@gmail.com :
>>
>>
>> I think it's not easy to persuade upstream to do so. Look deep at
>> meego-panel-zones, the HEAD version in git repo is 0.2.0[1], however
>> upstream rpm indicates the las
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 07/10/2010 01:37 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Jeff Spaleta wrote:
>> So It seems Carl G. has been closing several bugs across multiple
>> components without comment recently. Hmm.Not cool.
>
> Those bugs should be reported upstream, and such was
On Fri, 09 Jul 2010 23:10:57 +0100
Athmane Madjoudj wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I have noticed that the latest version of python-webpy package in
> fedora 14 rawhide is still 0.32-4.f12 while the latest upstream
> version is: 0.34 [1]
>
>
> is there any plan to update the package ?
>
> the current ma
Hi all again...
I have a motherboard that has no entries IDEs only sata.
When I try to install fedora 8 on this machine by the cdrom, the instalation
process started normally but when will it start anaconda does not find the
cdrom:/ks8.cfg. The cdrom is sata. I tried to pass multiple arguments to
Jeff Spaleta wrote:
> I certainly leave bugs in an open state until I or one of my
> co-maintainers makes a judgement call which mandates a wontfix
> resolution. This looks like a real issue..a tough one to track
> down..but still potentially fixable. Neither cantfix nor wontfix seem
> to apply...
Jeff Spaleta wrote:
> So It seems Carl G. has been closing several bugs across multiple
> components without comment recently. Hmm.Not cool.
Those bugs should be reported upstream, and such was requested in the bug
report. The reporters outright refused to report the bugs upstream, thus
it'
On Sat, Jul 10, 2010 at 7:19 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Michael Schwendt wrote:
>> For each of the packages, assign its package owner(s) to the review
>> ticket, let them perform the review themselves according to Fedora's
>> Review Guidelines and when done, set the fedora-review flag to '?' and
>>
Ian Weller wrote:
> I know a lot of others also have their own checklists, but I don't know
> if it's regularly updated.
Mine is there: http://fpaste.org/QhFD/ but you need to fill in that CAPTCHA
because the 1 day maximum expiration time already expired.
It should be up to date with the current
On 7/9/2010 12:32, Ian Weller wrote:
> I got to thinking (uh oh) after reading a few threads on devel about
> there being far too many review requests and not enough packagers
> interested in reviews. I know that one thing that makes package reviews
> bearable for me is a checklist to go through. I
2010/7/7 Tom "spot" Callaway :
> [makowski] firebird: firebird-filesystem-2.1.3.18185.0-8.fc14.x86_64
this one only hold some directories
it make no since to put licences in
> firebird-doc-2.1.3.18185.0-8.fc14.x86_64
this one have all the doc and of course the licence
--
devel mailing list
devel@l
Michael Schwendt wrote:
> For each of the packages, assign its package owner(s) to the review
> ticket, let them perform the review themselves according to Fedora's
> Review Guidelines and when done, set the fedora-review flag to '?' and
> move the ticket to a final tracker. In other words, let the
dblatex is up for grabs.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
On Sat, Jul 10, 2010 at 12:35 PM, Roberto Ragusa wrote:
> Al Dunsmuir wrote:
>
>> I would suggest doing PGO for the following:
>>
>> - Compression-type utilities (gz, zip, unzip, 7zip, etc),
>> especially those libraries used by RPM to generate/process deltas.
>
> and encryption stuff: op
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
Summary: perl-DBD-CSV-0.30 is available
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=613251
Summary: perl-DBD-CSV-0.30 is available
Product: Fedora
On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 3:43 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 08, 2010 at 12:54:35PM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>> Do you plan on doing a mass rebuild?
>
> I don't think it is necessary, at least not for the reason of a compiler
> upgrade. The mass rebuilds are usually done when we have so
Al Dunsmuir wrote:
> I would suggest doing PGO for the following:
>
> - Compression-type utilities (gz, zip, unzip, 7zip, etc),
> especially those libraries used by RPM to generate/process deltas.
and encryption stuff: openssl, openssh, md5sum, sha1sum, ...
and data intensive stuff: rs
29 matches
Mail list logo
