Christopher Meng wrote on 2013-06-03:
> SCM will be ready in a few hours, don't hurry.
>
> BTW a note, I hope you can change some items in the SCM comment.
>
> Description of yours: "package for OpenAttestation project"
>
> However I think it should be "Attestation Service & Host Agent based
> o
SCM will be ready in a few hours, don't hurry.
BTW a note, I hope you can change some items in the SCM comment.
Description of yours: "package for OpenAttestation project"
However I think it should be "Attestation Service & Host Agent based
on OpenAttestation SDK", yours seems not good.
And no
# Fedora Quality Assurance Meeting
# Date: 2013-06-03
# Time: 15:00 UTC
(https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Infrastructure/UTCHowto)
# Location: #fedora-meeting on irc.freenode.net
Greetings testers!
It's meeting time again today/tomorrow! Not a lot of new business, so I
thought about cancelling, but
How long will it usually take to get the approval for a New Package SCM
Request? And is it true that the package SCM requests will only be touched
in working days?
I just got a new package[1] pass review in last Friday afternoon US time but
the SCM request has not been handled by far. Just curious
On 06/02/2013 03:56 PM, Sérgio Basto wrote:
> it is possible use Chained_builds ?
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Using_the_Koji_build_system#Chained_builds
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Bodhi/BuildRootOverrides
Chained builds only work in rawhide, but you can manually do the
override tags for
Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> Actually I was going to ask the opposite question: Do we still need
> FedoraHosted?
I have found it a valuable service to provide an upstream home for fedora-
specific projects.
-- Rex
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject
HI
On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 5:52 PM, seth vidal wrote:
>
>
> I actually disagree with that.
>
> I think freedom of the service does matter. The debacles with google
> reader and google talk recently should be pointing that up to all of
> us. While DVCS do remove the possibility of our code getting
On Sun, 2 Jun 2013 16:39:20 -0400
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> Hi
>
>
> On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 6:45 PM, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
>
> >
> > Actually I was going to ask the opposite question: Do we still need
> > FedoraHosted? It was created before there was GitHub or Gitorious
> > but frankly we
Hi
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 6:45 PM, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
>
> Actually I was going to ask the opposite question: Do we still need
> FedoraHosted? It was created before there was GitHub or Gitorious but
> frankly we are not funded or staffed to make it bigger and better than it
> is now. Th
On Ter, 2013-05-07 at 14:07 +0300, Oron Peled wrote:
> On Wednesday 01 May 2013 22:21:20 Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> > On Wed, May 01, 2013 at 03:00:34AM +0100, Sérgio Basto wrote:
> > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=591190
> > I'm prepared to take debhelper. But:
> > (1) It looks l
Hello packagers!
Is there anyone with enough interest in Audacious (packages audacious*) as
to help out as a co-maintainer? Then please sign up via pkgdb. I'm facing
a serious lack of time due to house'n'roof renovation and accompanying
things to do, and I cannot keep up with Fedora "duties" for a
Compose started at Sun Jun 2 09:15:02 UTC 2013
Broken deps for x86_64
--
[bochs]
bochs-2.6.1-1.fc19.x86_64 requires vgabios
[deltacloud-core]
deltacloud-core-rhevm-1.1.3-1.fc19.noarch requires rubygem(rbovirt) >=
0:0.0.18
[d
I'd like a tool similar to portaudit in FreeBSD or debscan in Debian. This
tool should list all packages which have a security issue. Currently there
is yum-security-plugin but it lists packages only if an update is
available. The new tool would list vulnerable packages even if no update is
availab
Compose started at Sun Jun 2 08:15:03 UTC 2013
Broken deps for x86_64
--
[dragonegg]
dragonegg-3.1-19.fc19.x86_64 requires gcc = 0:4.7.2-9.fc19
[ekiga]
ekiga-4.0.1-1.fc19.x86_64 requires libedata-book-1.2.so.17()(64bit)
[enta
14 matches
Mail list logo
