Re: FYI: Fedora 3.6.10-4.fc18 hanging on startup on VM Player - VirtualBox works okay though

2012-12-29 Thread Aaron Gray
On 30 December 2012 03:39, Aaron Gray wrote: > Hi, > > Hope this is not noise... > > Just installed Fedora 3.6.10-4.fc18 32 bit on 32 bit VM Player on 64 bit > Windows 8 machine and it hangs on the blue background. > > Will try 64 bit VM Player tomorrow. > There was no 64 bit version of VMware p

FYI: Fedora 3.6.10-4.fc18 hanging on startup on VM Player

2012-12-29 Thread Aaron Gray
Hi, Hope this is not noise... Just installed Fedora 3.6.10-4.fc18 32 bit on 32 bit VM Player on 64 bit Windows 8 machine and it hangs on the blue background. Will try 64 bit VM Player tomorrow. Aaron -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/li

Re: texlua running for 8+ hours using 5GB of ram on yum update? (texlive-context-bin bug?)

2012-12-29 Thread Tom Callaway
On 12/29/2012 07:24 PM, Paul Wouters wrote: > > My yum update on f18 took about 20 minutes installing 3380 packages. > > Cleanup: bash-4.2.39-1.fc18.x86_64 3377/3380 > Cleanup: nss-softokn-freebl-3.14-5.fc18 3378/3380 > Cleanup: glibc-2.16-24.fc18 3379/3380 > Cleanup: tzda

Re: package reviews: new Release for every update

2012-12-29 Thread Michael Schwendt
On Sat, 29 Dec 2012 20:20:25 +0100, Alec Leamas wrote: > On 2012-12-29 19:45, Michael Schwendt wrote: > > On Sat, 29 Dec 2012 18:23:35 +, Jamie Nguyen wrote: > > > >> I've seen on a few occasions reviewers mention that they can't tell what > >> has changed in the spec since the previous versio

texlua running for 8+ hours using 5GB of ram on yum update? (texlive-context-bin bug?)

2012-12-29 Thread Paul Wouters
My yum update on f18 took about 20 minutes installing 3380 packages. Cleanup: bash-4.2.39-1.fc18.x86_64 3377/3380 Cleanup: nss-softokn-freebl-3.14-5.fc18 3378/3380 Cleanup: glibc-2.16-24.fc18 3379/3380 Cleanup: tzdata-2012i-1.fc18.noarch 3380/3380 And then it just sat th

Re: package reviews: new Release for every update

2012-12-29 Thread Alec Leamas
On 2012-12-29 19:45, Michael Schwendt wrote: On Sat, 29 Dec 2012 18:23:35 +, Jamie Nguyen wrote: I've seen on a few occasions reviewers mention that they can't tell what has changed in the spec since the previous version, as the new packager has overwritten the previous spec. If the packag

Re: package reviews: new Release for every update

2012-12-29 Thread Michael Schwendt
On Sat, 29 Dec 2012 18:23:35 +, Jamie Nguyen wrote: > I've seen on a few occasions reviewers mention that they can't tell what > has changed in the spec since the previous version, as the new packager > has overwritten the previous spec. If the packager does that, it makes the rpmdev-diff c

Re: package reviews: new Release for every update

2012-12-29 Thread Jamie Nguyen
Alec Leamas: > On 2012-12-29 17:01, Ken Dreyer wrote: >> I noticed our package review process doesn't explicitly say "After you >> make an update to the package, bump the 'Release' number and post a >> new link each time." This is a popular convention, but it doesn't seem >> to be formally document

Re: package reviews: new Release for every update

2012-12-29 Thread Alec Leamas
On 2012-12-29 17:01, Ken Dreyer wrote: I noticed our package review process doesn't explicitly say "After you make an update to the package, bump the 'Release' number and post a new link each time." This is a popular convention, but it doesn't seem to be formally documented. https://fedoraprojec

Re: pulseaudio maintainership status

2012-12-29 Thread Brendan Jones
On 12/28/2012 08:25 PM, Peter Robinson wrote: On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 3:34 PM, Brendan Jones wrote: On 12/28/2012 12:33 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote: Steve Clark wrote: Then why is no one fixing the identified bugs? Because Lennart insists on backporting only individual fixes to Fedora release

Re: pulseaudio maintainership status

2012-12-29 Thread Brendan Jones
On 12/28/2012 08:25 PM, Peter Robinson wrote: On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 3:34 PM, Brendan Jones wrote: On 12/28/2012 12:33 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote: Steve Clark wrote: Then why is no one fixing the identified bugs? Because Lennart insists on backporting only individual fixes to Fedora release

F-18 Branched report: 20121229 changes

2012-12-29 Thread Fedora Branched Report
Compose started at Sat Dec 29 09:16:24 UTC 2012 Summary: Added Packages: 0 Removed Packages: 0 Upgraded Packages: 0 Compose finished at Sat Dec 29 16:03:38 UTC 2012 -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

package reviews: new Release for every update

2012-12-29 Thread Ken Dreyer
I noticed our package review process doesn't explicitly say "After you make an update to the package, bump the 'Release' number and post a new link each time." This is a popular convention, but it doesn't seem to be formally documented. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_Review_Process Should

rawhide report: 20121229 changes

2012-12-29 Thread Fedora Rawhide Report
Compose started at Sat Dec 29 08:15:13 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.

Re: pulseaudio maintainership status

2012-12-29 Thread Peter Robinson
On 29 Dec 2012 01:48, "Chris Murphy" wrote: > > > On Dec 28, 2012, at 12:25 PM, Peter Robinson wrote: > > > On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 3:34 PM, Brendan Jones > > wrote: > >> On 12/28/2012 12:33 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote: > >>> > >>> Steve Clark wrote: > > Then why is no one fixing the identi