Hi
On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 1:58 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
>
> Well, we'll want to do all sorts of tests that aren't obviously tied to
> any specific package. The only kinds of tests it would make sense to
> have in packages would be tests that are very tightly associated with
> that package, but
On Tue, 2014-01-07 at 10:47 -0500, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 06, 2014 at 10:30:07PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > The RPM spec file is a clearly defined thing that achieves a clearly
> > defined set of functions. Overloading it with something that's really
>
> Well, it's not so clear
Miloslav Trmač (m...@volny.cz) said:
> >> During last weeks Base WG discussion about package set and self hosting
> >> of Base we came to a point where especially the self hosting of Base
> >> would currently look absurd as we'd require more than 2000 components to
> >> do so.
> >
> > Once you red
On Tue, Jan 07, 2014 at 09:25:36AM +0100, Simone Caronni wrote:
> On 6 January 2014 20:53, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
>
> slaanesh:BADSOURCE:dkms-2.2.0.3.tar.gz:dkms
>
>
> Downloading the file again gives a different md5sum, but the release tarball
> is
> the same, so probably the archive has been
On Jan 7, 2014, at 12:28 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> I recalled that
> we'd had some kind of issue with the mkconfig/install ordering before
> while I was writing the patch, indeed, but I couldn't recall if it was
> mkconfig sometimes requiring install to have been run, or the other way
> around
I've finally read it as well :) Comments below.
> At the moment, that task yaml file for rpmlint [1] looks like:
>
> dependencies:
> - rpmlint
> - libtaskbot
>
> input:
> args: envr,arch
These arguments are provided by the event trigger, right? So, the event trigger
offer
On Tue, 07 Jan 2014 08:15:54 -0800
John Chludzinski wrote:
> 20 is the latest but 19 is the base code for RHEL 7. Assuming they're
> not too different, is there an advantage to going with 19 since it's
> what RHEL 7 is based on?
>
If your not installing RHEL on the laptop, does it make a diffe
Am 07.01.2014 17:15, schrieb John Chludzinski:
> I'm about to install Fedora on my latest hardware and was wondering should I
> choose 19 or 20?
>
> 20 is the latest but 19 is the base code for RHEL 7. Assuming they're not
> too different, is there an advantage to
> going with 19 since it's
I'm about to install Fedora on my latest hardware and was wondering
should I choose 19 or 20?
20 is the latest but 19 is the base code for RHEL 7. Assuming they're
not too different, is there an advantage to going with 19 since it's
what RHEL 7 is based on?
---
John Chludzinski
john-chludzin
On Mon, Jan 06, 2014 at 10:30:07PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> The RPM spec file is a clearly defined thing that achieves a clearly
> defined set of functions. Overloading it with something that's really
Well, it's not so clear as all that, but, sure. And I wasn't really
suggesting that RPM be
aah, I see what you mean. I have mentioned on the docker index that the fedora
image should be considered semi-official for now since it hasn't gone via
releng.
I'll make sure to doublecheck future stuff, this one was sheer
carelessness/excitement.
Sorry about that.
- Original Message --
#fedora-meeting: env and stacks (2014-01-07)
Meeting started by mmaslano at 13:00:41 UTC. The full logs are available
at
http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2014-01-07/env_and_stacks.2014-01-07-
On 01/02/2014 11:37 AM, Ales Kozumplik wrote:
Rawhide builds are hitting a problem in python-pillow or something [1].
No longer. Rawhide build is ready now.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://
On Monday 06 January 2014 12:53:04 Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> rdieter:BADURL:lyx-2.0.7.tar.xz:lyx
lyx-2.0.7 is in the release stage and I am waiting for the release announce to
move it to stable (for F18-F20).
It seems that eventually the tar ball will be changed to have a patch to fix a
bug specific
On Mon, Jan 06, 2014 at 11:54:01PM +0100, Mauricio Tavares wrote:
> It seems a lot of them were not created for EPEL 6 and 7 (see
> https://apps.fedoraproject.org/packages/qemu-system-arm as an
> example). I take that means the current maintainer is up to his nose
> in projects. How can I be
Hi everybody,
just a heads up that I'll build python-sqlalchemy-0.9.1 in Rawhide
shortly. If your package uses SQLAlchemy, please check "What's New in
SQLAlchemy 0.9?"[1] for changes that might affect you. And test stuff,
of course.
Nils
[1]: http://docs.sqlalchemy.org/en/rel_0_9/changelog/migra
On Thu, Jan 02, 2014 at 03:52:00PM -0500, Matthew Miller wrote:
> Protected packages was first implemented * as a yum plugin because Seth
> thought it was kind of crazy and shouldn't be core functionality, but then
> it proved itself in real use and became built-in. Now, the DNF pages says
> "Simil
On Thu, 02 Jan 2014 16:28:59 +0100
Reindl Harald wrote:
> look like it starts to happen again: a replacement which is not ready
>
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1049310
It seems the majority want the current dnf default [1] to be kept
Those who want to keep "running" kernel may nee
On Sat, 4 Jan 2014 14:56:04 -0500
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> * yum remove kernel vs dnf remove kernel difference (unfiled? )
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1049310
___
Regards,
Frank
www.frankly3d.com
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject
Am 07.01.2014 12:06, schrieb Vít Ondruch:
> Dne 7.1.2014 11:34, Ian Malone napsal(a):
>> On 6 January 2014 13:06, Vít Ondruch wrote:
>>
>>> I don't even remember I ever needed "yum remove kernel". Does it mean that
>>> "yum remove kernel" should not work at all no matter if it leaves running
>>>
Dne 7.1.2014 11:34, Ian Malone napsal(a):
On 6 January 2014 13:06, Vít Ondruch wrote:
I don't even remember I ever needed "yum remove kernel". Does it mean that
"yum remove kernel" should not work at all no matter if it leaves running
kernel on the system or not? Or should it be completely pro
Dne 7.1.2014 10:52, Dridi Boukelmoune napsal(a):
On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 10:29 AM, Frank Murphy wrote:
On Tue, 7 Jan 2014 10:16:16 +0100
Dridi Boukelmoune wrote:
dnf remove kernel --all
I assume you're suggestion that `dnf remove kernel` should only remove
the latest kernel.
How do you make
On Tue, 7 Jan 2014 11:37:23 +0100
Dridi Boukelmoune wrote:
> Maybe this time you'll answer my question.
>
Read Vit's comment and my cli "command" suggestion to it!
you may get the answer, instead of looking for meanings' not required
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2014-January/
On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 11:28 AM, Frank Murphy wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Jan 2014 11:12:39 +0100
> Dridi Boukelmoune wrote:
>
>> I'm sorry for misunderstanding a command that didn't come with a
>> single sentence.
>>
>
>>"dnf remove kernel --all"
>>to remove "all"
>
> What's to misunderstand
Maybe this
On 6 January 2014 13:06, Vít Ondruch wrote:
> I don't even remember I ever needed "yum remove kernel". Does it mean that
> "yum remove kernel" should not work at all no matter if it leaves running
> kernel on the system or not? Or should it be completely prohibited? Why we
> keep 3 versions of ke
On Tue, 7 Jan 2014 11:12:39 +0100
Dridi Boukelmoune wrote:
> I'm sorry for misunderstanding a command that didn't come with a
> single sentence.
>
>"dnf remove kernel --all"
>to remove "all"
What's to misunderstand
___
Regards,
Frank
www.frankly3d.com
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fed
On Thu, Jan 02, 2014 at 13:32:57 -0500, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> Hi
>
> On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 6:43 AM, Martin Milata wrote:
>
> > You might be interested in mock-with-analysis [1], mock wrapper that can
> > run several static analyzers on unmodified SRPMs and extract the results
> > in machine-re
On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 11:06 AM, Frank Murphy wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Jan 2014 10:52:52 +0100
> Dridi Boukelmoune wrote:
>
>> I'm sorry I don't understand your answer.
>>
>> Dridi
>>
>>
>
> I can't make it any simpler.
You could maybe explain what you meant in the message I've answered to.
You've ju
On Tue, 7 Jan 2014 10:52:52 +0100
Dridi Boukelmoune wrote:
> I'm sorry I don't understand your answer.
>
> Dridi
>
>
I can't make it any simpler.
___
Regards,
Frank
www.frankly3d.com
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/deve
On Monday 06 of January 2014 16:42:35 Miloslav Trmač wrote:
> I appreciate that you needed to write a tool like this for the thesis;
> for general usage I'd strongly urge everyone to use a general-purpose
> cryptographic library that doesn't promise to use a particular
> technology. We really want
On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 10:29 AM, Frank Murphy wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Jan 2014 10:16:16 +0100
> Dridi Boukelmoune wrote:
>
>> > dnf remove kernel --all
>>
>> I assume you're suggestion that `dnf remove kernel` should only remove
>> the latest kernel.
>
> How do you make that out.
> Have you ever used
On Tue, 7 Jan 2014 10:16:16 +0100
Dridi Boukelmoune wrote:
> > dnf remove kernel --all
>
> I assume you're suggestion that `dnf remove kernel` should only remove
> the latest kernel.
How do you make that out.
Have you ever used "yum remove kernel"
"dnf remove kernel --all"
to remove "all"
__
On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 9:53 AM, Frank Murphy wrote:
> On Tue, 07 Jan 2014 09:48:16 +0100
> Vít Ondruch wrote:
>
>> Dne 6.1.2014 23:26, Chris Murphy napsal(a):
>> > Since "* remove kernel" appears to be inspecific, removing all
>> > kernels isn't what I'd expect. It's not how mv or cp or anything
On Tue, 07 Jan 2014 09:48:16 +0100
Vít Ondruch wrote:
> Dne 6.1.2014 23:26, Chris Murphy napsal(a):
> > Since "* remove kernel" appears to be inspecific, removing all
> > kernels isn't what I'd expect. It's not how mv or cp or anything
> > else would work.
> >
>
> So why not turn this around. In
Dne 6.1.2014 23:26, Chris Murphy napsal(a):
Since "* remove kernel" appears to be inspecific, removing all kernels
isn't what I'd expect. It's not how mv or cp or anything else would work.
So why not turn this around. In case somebody is doing "dnf remove
kernel" and dnf will figures out tha
Sounds good! Thank you!
Kenjiro
dridi.boukelmo...@gmail.com writes:
> On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 8:33 AM, Henrik Hodne wrote:
>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> Hey,
>>
>> On 01/07/2014 08:22 AM, Dridi Boukelmoune wrote:
>>> I have other pending open bugs, like one review for
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1049139
--- Comment #3 from Fedora Update System ---
perl-Syntax-Highlight-Engine-Kate-0.08-2.fc19 has been submitted as an update
for Fedora 19.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-Syntax-Highlight-Engine-Kate-0.08-2.fc19
--
You are receiv
Dne 6.1.2014 19:47, Matthew Miller napsal(a):
On Mon, Jan 06, 2014 at 11:04:39AM -0700, Tim Flink wrote:
What about including them in the RPMs themselves, in a new section
similar to the existing %check -- or just in a standard file location
(so no changes to RPM itself are needed immediately)?
On 6 January 2014 20:53, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> slaanesh:BADSOURCE:dkms-2.2.0.3.tar.gz:dkms
>
Downloading the file again gives a different md5sum, but the release
tarball is the same, so probably the archive has been regenerated.
What's the procedure to update the source files in the lookaside ca
39 matches
Mail list logo
