On 12/03/2012 09:20 AM, Tom Callaway wrote:
I'll try to take a look at this later this week (I'd do it now, but I'm
in all day meetings).
Hi Spot,
Did you have a chance to take a look at this?
Rahul
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/l
Julian Sikorski wrote:
> Dear list, Dear Lennart,
>
> a week ago I have submitted a pulseaudio bug alongside with the patch
> [1]. There was no response so far.
> [1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=888422
Updated submitted that includes the upstream fix,
https://admin.fedoraproject
Alec Leamas wrote:
> The situation then becomes problematic if the stalled process handles a
> package you want that much that you are willing to package it yourself -
> if you submit it it will (rightfully) be closed as a duplicate.
Don't let it go that far, instead immediately close the stalled
Steve Clark wrote:
> Then why is no one fixing the identified bugs?
Because Lennart insists on backporting only individual fixes to Fedora
releases as opposed to rebasing to a new version, and nobody has the time to
identify and backport the relevant commits.
IMHO, we should just upgrade PulseA
Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> Hence the question: isn't there a easy way to avoid this somehow in the
> future?
Just stop enabling updates-testing by default. That will fix both your case
(you'll have enabled=1 as a hand-edit and thus RPM will recognize your file
as modified and not overwrite it wi
Brendan Jones gmail.com> writes:
> If you look at the build status you can see pulseaudio is hardly
> unmaintained.
>
> Rex Dieter has also provided a backport of the latest pulseaudio to use
> with early releases. I'm sure he is very amenable to cherry picking
> patches from a later release
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Nella citazione in data gio 27 dic 2012 20:14:20 CET, Jared K. Smith ha
scritto:
> On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 1:38 PM, Basil Mohamed Gohar
> wrote:
>> Someone with more networking experience than me should probably reply,
>
> I'll do my best to help give
On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 1:38 PM, Basil Mohamed Gohar
wrote:
> Someone with more networking experience than me should probably reply,
I'll do my best to help give some background information here that
might be useful. It's probably a bit more than you were expecting,
but I've taught this topic fo
On 12/27/2012 11:40 AM, Antonio wrote:
> Il 27/12/2012 16:27, Basil Mohamed Gohar ha scritto:
> > On 12/27/2012 10:09 AM, Antonio wrote:
> >> Hello everyone.
> >>
> >> Currently I use the latest version of Ekiga on Fedora 18
> >> Spherical Cow. My internet connection implicates an outdoor
> >> ante
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Il 27/12/2012 17:47, Jan Kratochvil ha scritto:
> On Thu, 27 Dec 2012 16:09:51 +0100, Antonio wrote:
>> My internet connection implicates an outdoor antenna equipped
>> with a management software that includes a firewall (as well as
>> other services l
On Thu, 27 Dec 2012 16:09:51 +0100, Antonio wrote:
> My internet connection implicates an outdoor antenna equipped with a
> management software that includes a firewall (as well as other
> services like NAT, UPnP, DDNS, ...);
After trying to workaround this and that ISP/WiFi router I have found mo
On Thu, 27 Dec 2012 09:11:10 -0600
Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 26, 2012 at 15:49:33 -0700,
>Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> >
> >> [mygui]
> >> mygui-3.2.0-1.fc19.i686 requires libCommon.so
> >> mygui-3.2.0-1.fc19.x86_64 requires libCommon.so()(64bit)
> >> mygui-demos-3.2.0-1.fc19.x86_64 requi
Hi,
On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 5:01 PM, Josh Stone wrote:
> On 12/27/2012 05:30 AM, Ilyes Gouta wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I'm attempting to build a software requiring glib2-devel.i686, however
> > when attempting to yum install it, RPM generates a transaction error and
> > states that few files from g
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Il 27/12/2012 16:27, Basil Mohamed Gohar ha scritto:
> On 12/27/2012 10:09 AM, Antonio wrote:
>> Hello everyone.
>>
>> Currently I use the latest version of Ekiga on Fedora 18
>> Spherical Cow. My internet connection implicates an outdoor
>> antenna e
On 12/27/2012 05:30 AM, Ilyes Gouta wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm attempting to build a software requiring glib2-devel.i686, however
> when attempting to yum install it, RPM generates a transaction error and
> states that few files from glib2-devel.i686 conflict w/the x86_64 flavor.
>
> The listed conflic
On 12/27/2012 10:09 AM, Antonio wrote:
> Hello everyone.
>
> Currently I use the latest version of Ekiga on Fedora 18 Spherical Cow.
> My internet connection implicates an outdoor antenna equipped with a
> management software that includes a firewall (as well as other
> services like NAT, UPnP, DDN
On Wed, Dec 26, 2012 at 15:49:33 -0700,
Kevin Fenzi wrote:
[mygui]
mygui-3.2.0-1.fc19.i686 requires libCommon.so
mygui-3.2.0-1.fc19.x86_64 requires libCommon.so()(64bit)
mygui-demos-3.2.0-1.fc19.x86_64 requires libCommon.so()(64bit)
mygui-tools-3.2.0-1.fc19.x86_64 requires libCommon.so()(64b
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hello everyone.
Currently I use the latest version of Ekiga on Fedora 18 Spherical Cow.
My internet connection implicates an outdoor antenna equipped with a
management software that includes a firewall (as well as other
services like NAT, UPnP, DDNS,
On Thu, 27 Dec 2012 14:30:25 +0100, Ilyes Gouta wrote:
> file /usr/bin/gdbus-codegen from install of
> glib2-devel-2.32.4-2.fc17.i686 conflicts with file from package
> glib2-devel-2.32.4-2.fc17.x86_64
Not addressing here.
> file /usr/share/glib-2.0/gdb/glib.pyc from install of
> glib2-devel
Hi,
I'm attempting to build a software requiring glib2-devel.i686, however when
attempting to yum install it, RPM generates a transaction error and states
that few files from glib2-devel.i686 conflict w/the x86_64 flavor.
The listed conflicting files seem related to gdb and systemtap (tools)
inte
Compose started at Thu Dec 27 09:16:16 UTC 2012
Summary:
Added Packages: 0
Removed Packages: 0
Upgraded Packages: 0
Compose finished at Thu Dec 27 13:13:00 UTC 2012
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Compose started at Thu Dec 27 08:15:07 UTC 2012
Broken deps for x86_64
--
[dogtag-pki]
dogtag-pki-10.0.0-0.16.b3.fc19.noarch requires dogtag-pki-server-theme
>= 0:10.0.0
[ember]
ember-0.6.3-3.fc19.x86_64 requires libOgreMain.
Hello everyone,
I am Mark Klein, a 14-year-old high school student from Honolulu, Hawaii.
(UTC-10)
I am participating in the Google Code-In contest and for my task[0], I
designed an android application[1] for Planet Fedora[2], which is a website
that displays blog posts by Fedora developers. The
Thank you.
2012/12/27 Thorsten Leemhuis
> On 27.12.2012 10:34, M.M. wrote:
> > Is kernel 3.7 expected to be available for Fedora 18?
> > If so, can you estimate how long it will take?
> > Thank you.
>
> See http://jwboyer.livejournal.com/46002.html
> Quoting one part:
>
> """
> > Fedora 18: […]
On 12/27/2012 10:48 AM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Thu, 27 Dec 2012 09:48:45 +0100, Alec Leamas wrote:
Continue talking to the other people,
[snip]
Yes, this is the correct action. But it's hard to talk to people if
they don't reply at all or not in a meaningful way. I'm not talking
abo
On 27.12.2012 10:34, M.M. wrote:
> Is kernel 3.7 expected to be available for Fedora 18?
> If so, can you estimate how long it will take?
> Thank you.
See http://jwboyer.livejournal.com/46002.html
Quoting one part:
"""
> Fedora 18: […] The 3.7 kernel rebase will be available as an update via the
On Thu, 27 Dec 2012 09:48:45 +0100, Alec Leamas wrote:
> > Continue talking to the other people,
>
> [snip]
>
>
> Yes, this is the correct action. But it's hard to talk to people if
> they don't reply at all or not in a meaningful way. I'm not talking
> about reviews making progress, poss
Is kernel 3.7 expected to be available for Fedora 18?
If so, can you estimate how long it will take?
Thank you.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
On 12/27/2012 07:35 AM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Thu, 27 Dec 2012 06:55:01 +0100, Alec Leamas wrote:
As I understand it, we have a policy handling unresponsive submitters or
reviewers. However, there is a third case when the complete process is
stalled.
The situation then becomes problematic
29 matches
Mail list logo
