Hi,
One of my packages: dcm4che-test fails to build for rawhide currently.
There's a bug filed here[1]. The build.log seems to fail on the
"add_to_maven_depmap" macro. I think it doesn't find it at all[2]. Could
someone please tell me if I'm missing a BR or if the macros have
changed[3]?
[1] http
On Sat, Aug 17, 2013 at 11:12 PM, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> So my guess is that sometime after F7 (maybe when upgrade was no longer a
> path in Anaconda?) it was considered not supported anymore?
No and anaconda lost support in F18 (and fedup took its place).
--
devel mailing list
devel@lis
On 16 August 2013 19:41, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> On 08/15/2013 03:55 PM, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
>
> What's alarming with the decision to officially support upgrades that it
> was done without consulting the QA community, which are the ones that have
> to come up with the test cases
I would like to edit comps.xml to add a new package group for the tools
that have already been packaged by the Formal Methods SIG.
I propose that the group be located under the "Development" category.
Id: formal-methods-tools
Name: Formal Methods Tools
Description: These tools for the developmen
On 08/17/2013 12:28 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
VLAN setup for installing! Yay! However, after rebooting,
NetworkManager wasn't able to bring it up, something about not knowing
the "virtual interface name". Turned out to be the ethernet interface
name changed from what it was at install time.
Am 17.08.2013 20:17, schrieb Kevin Fenzi:
> On Fri, 16 Aug 2013 22:05:57 +0200
> Reindl Harald wrote:
>
>> since i have enough of bugzilla-mails as response of bugreports
>> containing referecnes to any Fedora version but not the reported
>> i consider this as bug in the distribution itself
>>
On Fri, 16 Aug 2013 22:05:57 +0200
Reindl Harald wrote:
> since i have enough of bugzilla-mails as response of bugreports
> containing referecnes to any Fedora version but not the reported
> i consider this as bug in the distribution itself
>
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=998035
since i have enough of bugzilla-mails as response of bugreports
containing referecnes to any Fedora version but not the reported
i consider this as bug in the distribution itself
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=998035
*at least* a "we do not fix this in F18 because "
or "it will most
Il 17/08/2013 19:27, punto...@libero.it ha scritto:
hi
uploaded some patch for the following packages,
which have had this problem "FTBFS in rawhide"
geronimo-validation https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=992345
htmlunit https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=992488
jamonapi https
hi
uploaded some patch for the following packages,
which have had this problem "FTBFS in rawhide"
geronimo-validation https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=992345
htmlunit https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=992488
jamonapi https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=992588
json-li
On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 12:34:26PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> But then there's the issue of transporting these sparse files
> around. We have had the same problem in the past with large e2image
> metadata image files, which may be terabytes in length, with only
> gigabytes or megabytes of real d
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, 15 Aug 2013 23:48:46 -0500
Dennis Gilmore wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Mon, 12 Aug 2013 14:47:03 +0100
> Richard Hughes wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I'd like to ask for comments on a feature I need for t
On Sat, Aug 17, 2013 at 5:15 PM, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Sat, 17 Aug 2013 13:14:14 +0200
> drago01 wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 6:48 AM, Dennis Gilmore
>> wrote:
>> > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>> > Hash: SHA1
>> >
>> > On Mon
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sat, 17 Aug 2013 13:14:14 +0200
drago01 wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 6:48 AM, Dennis Gilmore
> wrote:
> > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> > On Mon, 12 Aug 2013 14:47:03 +0100
> > Richard Hughes wrote:
> >
> >> Hi all,
On 17 August 2013 10:00, Till Maas wrote:
> Due to missing FTBFS bug reports for Fedora 18 and a bug in scripting,
> FTBFS packages were missing in previous reports. According to
>
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fails_to_build_from_source?rd=FTBFS#Package_Removal_for_Long-standing_FTBFS_bugs
>
Hi,
I maintain two packages for the fedora-medical SIG that fall under the
"freemedforms[1]" project. At the moment, these are packaged separately:
1. freemedforms[2]: provides freemedforms-emr and pulls in freediams
2. freediams[3]
Now, freemedforms-emr and freediams are both built from the sa
On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 6:48 AM, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Mon, 12 Aug 2013 14:47:03 +0100
> Richard Hughes wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I'd like to ask for comments on a feature I need for the Fedora
>> Application Installer. The current yum back
I hope we can remain the rawhide packages for downgrade.
Any ideas?
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
On Fri, 16 Aug 2013 16:57:38 -0600
Kevin Fenzi wrote:
>
> Well, I think many folks won't like the extra disk space used.
More than likely, but if they are interested in testing maybe not.?
>
> I think it would take something like yum-plugin-local to have a
> proper repo that yum could see to
在 2013-8-17 PM5:00，"Till Maas" 写道：
> becicku, mcepl
Please don't retire it, I'm planning an update these days.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-o
On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 10:26:45PM +0200, Kalev Lember wrote:
> On 08/16/2013 10:15 PM, Till Maas wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 03:17:42PM -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> >
> >> FTBFS packages need:
> >>
> >> 1) a list gathered by pruning the old F18FTBFS bug, or noting what things
> >> still
(Sorry, I forgot to add the package maintainers address to Bcc,
therefore this message will appear twice on the devel mailing list)
Due to missing FTBFS bug reports for Fedora 18 and a bug in scripting,
FTBFS packages were missing in previous reports. According to
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fai
Due to missing FTBFS bug reports for Fedora 18 and a bug in scripting,
FTBFS packages were missing in previous reports. According to
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fails_to_build_from_source?rd=FTBFS#Package_Removal_for_Long-standing_FTBFS_bugs
removing long standing FTBFS packages might be delayed
On Sat, Aug 17, 2013 at 1:41 AM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson"
wrote:
> On 08/15/2013 03:55 PM, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> Some form of middle ground of this is what we have currently implemented in
> QA and test for but even there we cannot "guarantee" anything, like if we
> take the default deskto
On Fri, 2013-08-09 at 15:54 -0700, Samuel Sieb wrote:
> I realize it's been a while since F19 was released but I finally got
> around to do a server install. Since there have been a few negative
> reviews here of the installation process I thought it might be nice to
> have a mostly positive on
On Fri, 2013-08-09 at 16:56 +0100, আনন্দ কুমার সমাদ্দার Ananda Samaddar
wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Aug 2013 17:52:23 +0200
> Lennart Poettering wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 09.08.13 16:34, আনন্দ কুমার সমাদ্দার Ananda Samaddar
> > (asamad...@myopera.com) wrote:
> >
> > > > I have no idea about hte package in que
26 matches
Mail list logo
