Dne 28.8.2012 00:37, Jerry James napsal(a):
Bodhi seems to be enforcing 7 days in updates-testing for F18. Are we
going to switch to the 3 day minimum described in
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Updates_Policy#Pre_Beta?
We are in Alpha Freeze now [1, 2], so your update will spend in Bodhi
eve
On 2012-08-27 22:08, Michael Scherer wrote:
Le lundi 27 août 2012 à 17:48 -0700, Adam Williamson a écrit :
On 2012-08-24 13:49, Rave it wrote:
> Rex Dieter wrote:
>
> I can understand your frustration, and that you and Dan had
trouble
> communicating and working together.
>
> I do wish to than
Le lundi 27 août 2012 à 17:48 -0700, Adam Williamson a écrit :
> On 2012-08-24 13:49, Rave it wrote:
> > Rex Dieter wrote:
> >
> > I can understand your frustration, and that you and Dan had trouble
> > communicating and working together.
> >
> > I do wish to thank you for the positive contribution
On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 06:12:55PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On 2012-08-25 22:52, M.M. wrote:
>
> >Or is it better to add an explicit "Requires" (for e.g. GNOME Shell
> >3.4.x) to the Spec files? In such case, is something like "Requires:
> >gnome-shell=3.4.*" allowed to specify all sub-rele
Hi Gerry,
Try contacting the main dev. mailing-list of DirectFB. I'm sure you'll get
an answer there.
Btw, DirectFB-1.5.3 is rather old, DirectFB-1.6.1 is rather the latest
stable release.
-Ilyes
On Aug 28, 2012 1:04 AM, "Gerry Reno" wrote:
> On 08/24/2012 06:56 PM, Gerry Reno wrote:
> > I hav
I think it's time to stop making argument or statement.This email really
makes me feel confused.
I understand Rave's state of mind.Well,I think you have 2 choices, leave or
just go ahead.
But you don't want to leave,so please do some other works,not only the mate
desktop.
I hope you can feel bet
On 2012-08-25 22:52, M.M. wrote:
Or is it better to add an explicit "Requires" (for e.g. GNOME Shell
3.4.x) to the Spec files? In such case, is something like "Requires:
gnome-shell=3.4.*" allowed to specify all sub-releases belonging to
the 3.4 branch?
You can't use wildcards like this, but I
On 2012-08-25 16:31, Garrett Holmstrom wrote:
On 2012-08-25 10:09, Todd Zullinger wrote:
Enrico Scholz wrote:
Todd Zullinger writes:
Doing this would break current users that have already configured
their system to use __git_ps1().
What are "current users"? Those who installed your just rel
On 2012-08-24 13:49, Rave it wrote:
Rex Dieter wrote:
I can understand your frustration, and that you and Dan had trouble
communicating and working together.
I do wish to thank you for the positive contributions you made, and
in
your future endeavors.
-- rex
No mercy, no thanks.
Why do you
On 08/24/2012 06:56 PM, Gerry Reno wrote:
> I have had no success whatsoever getting DirectFB to run under F17 as a
> regular user on my HP laptop.
>
> # yum list DirectFB
>
> Installed Packages
> directfb.x86_64 1.5.3-7.fc17
>
Bodhi seems to be enforcing 7 days in updates-testing for F18. Are we
going to switch to the 3 day minimum described in
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Updates_Policy#Pre_Beta?
--
Jerry James
http://www.jamezone.org/
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.
On 8/27/12 5:38 PM, Matthias Clasen wrote:
On Mon, 2012-08-27 at 15:27 -0400, Adam Jackson wrote:
That said it's probably less work to grab a copy of pango-1.30.1 and
just build compat-pangox from that.
I would prefer if we could get a snapshot with the 2 1/2 year old
gtkglext change built th
On Mon, 2012-08-27 at 15:27 -0400, Adam Jackson wrote:
> That said it's probably less work to grab a copy of pango-1.30.1 and
> just build compat-pangox from that.
I would prefer if we could get a snapshot with the 2 1/2 year old
gtkglext change built that removed the pangox dependency. We're ta
On 8/27/12 1:22 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 08/27/2012 06:13 PM, Adam Jackson wrote:
Still, looking into it.
My view: The pango maintainers can not abandon pangox just because
_they_ do not use some API other works rely upon.
That's an opinion you can have. Personally once an API has been
On 08/27/2012 06:13 PM, Adam Jackson wrote:
On 8/27/12 9:10 AM, Adam Jackson wrote:
pangoxft should be a functional replacement, as far as I can tell, and
the APIs seem to be quite similar.
Actually I'm told pangocairo is the preferred thing instead of pangoxft.
repoquery agrees:
$ repoque
On 8/27/12 9:10 AM, Adam Jackson wrote:
pangoxft should be a functional replacement, as far as I can tell, and
the APIs seem to be quite similar.
Actually I'm told pangocairo is the preferred thing instead of pangoxft.
repoquery agrees:
$ repoquery --whatrequires 'libpangocairo-1.0.so.0()(
This package was being reviewed, but the review disappeared on me almost
two months ago:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=834070
--
Darryl L. Pierce
http://mcpierce.multiply.com/
"What do you care what people think, Mr. Feynman?"
pgptMrCuQxySV.pgp
Description: PGP signature
--
dev
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=851875
Petr Šabata changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
On 08/27/2012 05:04 AM, Paul Howarth wrote:
> He's not ignoring it, he's saying that on F18+, the expansion of
> %systemd_post_enable should be exactly the same as the expansion of
> %systemd_post, i.e. not enabled by default and honoring whatever
> presets are set for the spin.
Hmm, okay, this is
On 8/25/12 10:01 AM, TASAKA Mamoru wrote:
Fedora Rawhide Report wrote, at 08/25/2012 09:34 PM +9:00:
Compose started at Sat Aug 25 08:15:10 UTC 2012
Broken deps for x86_64
--
[OpenSceneGraph]
OpenSceneGraph-examples-gtk-3.0.1-12.fc18.x
On Sun, 26 Aug 2012 14:11:39 -0400
Tom Callaway wrote:
> On 08/25/2012 09:16 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> > 2. On UNRELEASED Fedora versions, i.e. Fedora 18 and higher, define
> > %systemd_post as currently done, and %systemd_post_enable to the
> > exact same thing.
>
> This is the problem: In F18
Le Sam 25 août 2012 11:54, Dodji Seketeli a écrit :
> Hello,
>
> Fedora Rawhide Report a écrit:
>
>> firefox-14.0.1-3.fc19
>> -
>> * Wed Aug 22 2012 Dan Horák - 14.0.1-3
>> - add fix for secondary arches from xulrunner
>
> With this update and ...
>
>> xulrunner-15.0-1.b6.fc1
OK, here is the ticket I filed to rel-eng:
https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/5307
Now, I'm unsure on how to deal with the branch "master": should I keep
it up-to-date even if it's related to Fedora 19? Or, instead, when
updating the package, should I update only the branch "f17", excluding
e
23 matches
Mail list logo
