Hi,
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 12:41:42PM -0800, Andrew Lutomirski wrote:
> I have some trivial cleanups I want to make to a package a maintain.
> These cleanups are trivial enough that I don't think they're worth a
> new build. Should I commit them to the master branch?
>
> The normal GIT approach
On 15 Jan 2014 02:11, "David Airlie" wrote:
>
>
> > >
> > > On 14 Jan 2014 06:04, "David Airlie" < airl...@redhat.com > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi all,
> > > >
> > > > I've gotten a build tag f21-llvm for attempting to rebase rawhide
to llvm
> > > > 3.4
> > >
> > > Assuming there aren't any major s
Hi
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 2:28 AM, Panu Matilainen wrote:
> See https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=105159.
>
That doesn't appear to be correct. Can you try again?
Rahul
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedor
On 01/15/2014 02:56 AM, Todd Zullinger wrote:
Hi all,
[I posted this to the packaging list a few days ago, but haven't gotten
any responses, so I want to open this to a wider audience in the hope of
getting some pointers to what I'm missing.]
I'm trying to fix a problem with the git-svn package
On Tue, 2014-01-14 at 17:06 +, Peter Oliver wrote:
> Step 13 of the New package process for existing contributors
> (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/New_package_process_for_existing_contributors)
> is to push packages to updates-testing. Step 14 is to update comps.
>
> Do I first need to wait
On 01/14/2014 08:11 PM, David Airlie wrote:
It looks like OpenGTL is going to be the sticking point,
upstream appears dead,
I'll go poke upstream tomorrow, to verify (un)dead status or not.
-- rex
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/list
> >
> > On 14 Jan 2014 06:04, "David Airlie" < airl...@redhat.com > wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > I've gotten a build tag f21-llvm for attempting to rebase rawhide to llvm
> > > 3.4
> >
> > Assuming there aren't any major stumbling blocks, are there any plans to
> > back
> > port llvm
I just found that auto requires no longer works as expected. My package
postgrey contains on binary writing in perl but auto requires returns
nothing.
I'm using rawhide, similar to f20 IMO.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 1:07 AM, Casper wrote:
> Kevin Fenzi a écrit :
>> Greetings.
>>
>> The following packages have been orphaned due to their former
>> maintainer removing themselves from the packager group:
>>
>> NetPIPE
>
>> checkdns
> taken, co-maintainers welcome
>
I might volunteer
Hi all,
[I posted this to the packaging list a few days ago, but haven't
gotten any responses, so I want to open this to a wider audience in
the hope of getting some pointers to what I'm missing.]
I'm trying to fix a problem with the git-svn package that causes it to
not pull in the proper p
On Mon, 13 Jan 2014, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
On 01/13/2014 09:57 AM, Frank Murphy wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jan 2014 09:53:53 +0100
Miroslav Suchý wrote:
On 01/13/2014 08:56 AM, Frank Murphy wrote:
to be certain you can do "dnf(yum) --enablerepo=* clean all"
if your intention is truly to remove all c
On 01/13/2014 03:26 PM, Miroslav Suchy wrote:
I just deployed new version of Copr at:
Hi Miroslav,
I just tried Copr. Very nice!
1. +1 for armhfp arch! (On my mind b/c I've just spent a while
playing with Fedora chroots on a Samsung Galaxy Note 8.)
2. It would be very convenient to upl
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
As of 14th January 2014, Fedora 18 has reached its end of life for
updates and support. No further updates, including security updates,
will be available for Fedora 18. A previous reminder was sent on
December 18th [0].
Fedora 19 will continue to rece
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 12:59 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Tue, 2014-01-14 at 12:41 -0800, Andrew Lutomirski wrote:
>> I have some trivial cleanups I want to make to a package a maintain.
>> These cleanups are trivial enough that I don't think they're worth a
>> new build. Should I commit them
tflink added a dependency: T46: bodhi directive module
TASK DETAIL
https://phab.qadevel.cloud.fedoraproject.org/T41
To: tflink
Cc: qa-devel, tflink
___
qa-devel mailing list
qa-de...@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/list
tflink created this task.
tflink added subscribers: qa-devel, tflink.
tflink added a project: taskotron
TASK DESCRIPTION
For phase 1, we need to replace AutoQA. This means that we need the ability
to report results directly to bodhi - at least for the short term.
The directive will take in
tflink added a dependent task: T41: Phase 1 Taskotron Runner
TASK DETAIL
https://phab.qadevel.cloud.fedoraproject.org/T46
To: tflink
Cc: qa-devel, tflink
___
qa-devel mailing list
qa-de...@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailma
the CPU(s)
Update Information:
* Tue Jan 14 2014 Fabian Affolter - 20140114-1
- Update to new upstream version 20130114
ChangeLog:
* Tue Jan 14 2014 Fabian Affolter -
On Tue, 2014-01-14 at 12:41 -0800, Andrew Lutomirski wrote:
> I have some trivial cleanups I want to make to a package a maintain.
> These cleanups are trivial enough that I don't think they're worth a
> new build. Should I commit them to the master branch? If so, I can
> imagine a couple of issu
The following Fedora EPEL 5 Security updates need testing:
Age URL
632
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2012-5630/bugzilla-3.2.10-5.el5
123
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2013-11560/fail2ban-0.8.10-4.el5
87
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1046506
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ON_QA |CLOSED
Fixed In Version|
On Tue, 14 Jan 2014 12:41:42 -0800
Andrew Lutomirski wrote:
> I have some trivial cleanups I want to make to a package a maintain.
> These cleanups are trivial enough that I don't think they're worth a
> new build. Should I commit them to the master branch? If so, I can
> imagine a couple of is
On 14/01/14 20:41, Andrew Lutomirski wrote:
> I have some trivial cleanups I want to make to a package a maintain.
> These cleanups are trivial enough that I don't think they're worth a
> new build. Should I commit them to the master branch? If so, I can
> imagine a couple of issues:
>
> - A pr
tflink created this task.
tflink added subscribers: qa-devel, tflink.
tflink added a project: taskotron
TASK DESCRIPTION
In the demo code, the directives (koji, python, etc.) are all loaded at run
time. While this works for the time being, it will start contributing to
undesired side-effects a
tflink added a dependent task: T41: Phase 1 Taskotron Runner
TASK DETAIL
https://phab.qadevel.cloud.fedoraproject.org/T45
To: tflink
Cc: qa-devel, tflink
___
qa-devel mailing list
qa-de...@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailma
tflink added a dependency: T45: dynamically load modules for task directives
TASK DETAIL
https://phab.qadevel.cloud.fedoraproject.org/T41
To: tflink
Cc: qa-devel, tflink
___
qa-devel mailing list
qa-de...@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedorapr
I have some trivial cleanups I want to make to a package a maintain.
These cleanups are trivial enough that I don't think they're worth a
new build. Should I commit them to the master branch? If so, I can
imagine a couple of issues:
- A provenpackager could kick off a rebuild for whatever reaso
On Tue, 14 Jan 2014 17:06:37 + (GMT)
Peter Oliver wrote:
> Step 13 of the New package process for existing contributors
> (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/New_package_process_for_existing_contributors)
> is to push packages to updates-testing. Step 14 is to update comps.
>
> Do I first need
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 07:52:29PM +0100, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
> Really I'd be fine with a compiler in the bigger universe - or,
> perhaps (NOT actually proposing this, we coordinating between the WGs
> already requires enough work) in a "development tools" product.
It doesn't necessarily need to
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 05:49:03PM +0100, Harald Hoyer wrote:
> Analyzed the BRs more closely and produced some graphs for your viewing
> pleasure:
> http://www.harald-hoyer.de/2014/01/14/self-hosting-fedora-base/
Beautiful! Well, kind of ugly. But it's neat to see!
Also humorous that graphviz
Am 14.01.2014 19:12, schrieb Maros Zatko:
> On 01/14/2014 03:38 PM, H. Guémar wrote:
>> What's the point ?
> Personally, it's mainly about not throwing gnome 3 HIG at people
personally if a GTK user does not want GTK3 i want a pure
QT firefox to get rid of GTK-dialogs
i know that will not happe
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 12:06:09PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> A couple of questions and comments. I think overall, the approach works.
> # Packaging Libraries
> This does not mention libraries which use cgo. Should they be
> handled the same way? What about additional C wrappers?
I think fo
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1052430
Adam Miller changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |CLOSED
Resolution|---
On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 9:01 PM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> Miloslav Trmač (m...@volny.cz) said:
>> Actually, even more generally - why a self-hosting Base at all? It
>> would clearly be absurd for the kernel to be self-hosting, and clearly
>> we want "the Fedora universe" to be self-hosting. Why i
The lightweight tag 'perl-Parallel-ForkManager-1.05-1.el7' was created pointing
to:
695685d... Update to latest upstream version.
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
perl-devel mailing list
perl-de...@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.or
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 2:36 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 01/13/2014 12:50 PM, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 6:32 PM, Stephen Gallagher
>> wrote:
>>> Probably this needs to go to FESCo/FPC, but what about
>>> package-speci
On 01/14/2014 03:38 PM, H. Guémar wrote:
What's the point ?
Personally, it's mainly about not throwing gnome 3 HIG at people.
There's absolutely no benefit in keeping Gtk+2 longer.
Gtk+ 2.24.0 has been released 3 years ago (january, 2011) and is only
receiving bugfix due to existing apps who d
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 2:49 PM, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
> H. Guémar wrote:
>>
>> What's the point ? There's absolutely no benefit in keeping Gtk+2 longer.
>> Gtk+ 2.24.0 has been released 3 years ago (january, 2011) and is only
>> receiving
>> bugfix due to existing apps who didn't move to Gtk
Step 13 of the New package process for existing contributors
(https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/New_package_process_for_existing_contributors)
is to push packages to updates-testing. Step 14 is to update comps.
Do I first need to wait for the package to make it's way from updates-testing
to upda
Analyzed the BRs more closely and produced some graphs for your viewing
pleasure:
http://www.harald-hoyer.de/2014/01/14/self-hosting-fedora-base/
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproje
The lightweight tag 'perl-Data-Buffer-0.04-17.el7' was created pointing to:
ce12ebf... - Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_19_Mass
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
perl-devel mailing list
perl-de...@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.
The lightweight tag 'perl-Compress-Raw-Lzma-2.061-1.el7' was created pointing
to:
1fefe20... Update to 2.061
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
perl-devel mailing list
perl-de...@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/pe
On 01/14/2014 01:06 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
On 01/13/2014 04:11 PM, H. Guémar wrote:
there's a draft, i suggest that you start checking it.
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Go
A couple of questions and comments. I think overall, the approach works.
# Packaging Libraries
This
Am 14.01.2014 15:59, schrieb Daniel P. Berrange:
> On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 08:49:05AM -0600, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
>> H. Guémar wrote:
>>> What's the point ? There's absolutely no benefit in keeping Gtk+2 longer.
>>> Gtk+ 2.24.0 has been released 3 years ago (january, 2011) and is only
>>> re
On 01/13/2014 04:16 PM, Christopher Meng wrote:
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 11:15 PM, Martin Stransky wrote:
Hi guys,
first $SUBJ is available at:
http://stransky.fedorapeople.org/FirefoxGtk3/
It's just a src.spm and plugin support it not finished (don't browse youtube
;-)) but may work as a pre
2014/1/14 Daniel P. Berrange
>
> In fact Fedora still ships GTK *1*. If we can't even get rid of GTK1,
> then talk of killing GTK2 seems wildly over optimistic.
>
> Regards,
> Daniel
>
I'll quote myself again: "at least from base images" , not removing it from
repositories.
H.
--
devel mailing
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 08:49:05AM -0600, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
> H. Guémar wrote:
> >What's the point ? There's absolutely no benefit in keeping Gtk+2 longer.
> >Gtk+ 2.24.0 has been released 3 years ago (january, 2011) and is only
> >receiving
> >bugfix due to existing apps who didn't move
H. Guémar wrote:
What's the point ? There's absolutely no benefit in keeping Gtk+2 longer.
Gtk+ 2.24.0 has been released 3 years ago (january, 2011) and is only receiving
bugfix due to existing apps who didn't move to Gtk+3.
By migrating more apps, we can drop Gtk+ 2.24 (at least from images), fi
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 12:54 PM, David Airlie wrote:
>
>
> >
> >
> > On 14 Jan 2014 06:04, "David Airlie" < airl...@redhat.com > wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > I've gotten a build tag f21-llvm for attempting to rebase rawhide to
> llvm
> > > 3.4
> >
> > Assuming there aren't any major st
On Tue, 14 Jan 2014 15:22:52 +0100
Maros Zatko wrote:
> > [1] https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=627699
> What can do users who doesn't want that gtk3 port?
> For some users reasoning that "it works better in gnome-shell" is
> just not enough.
>
I don't use Gnome, works fine in Xfce (F
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 01/13/2014 04:17 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> [Moving this to the libguestfs mailing list]
>
> On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 03:05:14PM -0500, Daniel J Walsh wrote:
>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1
>>
>> On 01/13/2014 11:49 AM, Richar
What's the point ? There's absolutely no benefit in keeping Gtk+2 longer.
Gtk+ 2.24.0 has been released 3 years ago (january, 2011) and is only
receiving bugfix due to existing apps who didn't move to Gtk+3.
By migrating more apps, we can drop Gtk+ 2.24 (at least from images),
firefox is one of the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
El Tue, 14 Jan 2014 14:18:38 +
Paul Howarth escribió:
> On 10/01/14 23:52, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
> > Hi All,
> >
> > Se we have composes working automatically now, the job had been
> > failing. I'm trying to get epel 7 to the point where the packa
commit 02c20ac6136de42d3517062cd7178db46cf1a630
Author: Jose Pedro Oliveira
Date: Tue Jan 14 14:24:18 2014 +
Update to 1.04.
.gitignore |1 +
perl-ZMQ-Constants.spec |7 +--
sources |2 +-
3 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
--
A file has been added to the lookaside cache for perl-IO-Socket-SSL:
a48c412bbcf3cd0d90b15b8baf9f2d6f IO-Socket-SSL-1.963.tar.gz
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
perl-devel mailing list
perl-de...@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/
On 01/13/2014 04:49 PM, Martin Stransky wrote:
On 01/13/2014 04:41 PM, Josh Boyer wrote:
I don't say it's important/newsworthy. It's just FYI. Please ignore if
you're not interested.
Ok, I'll rephrase.
I'm interested but I have no idea how this is different from every
other Firefox build that
Dne 20.12.2013 11:51, Miro Hrončok napsal(a):
Dne 19.12.2013 09:33, Florian Weimer napsal(a):
I think Debian has a working rpmbuild, but it obviously doesn't help if
you aren't allowed to install packages.
So apparently rpmbuild works, but ignores my %global statements, so the
command fails:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 01/13/2014 12:50 PM, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 6:32 PM, Stephen Gallagher
> wrote:
>> Probably this needs to go to FESCo/FPC, but what about
>> package-specific CAs? For example, I have a pattern I was
>> thinking about adding
On Tue, 2014-01-14 at 11:00 +0100, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> So instead of the perenial "let's drop rpm and use upstream incomplete
> systems"
You might note I didn't say that.
> I'd like to see the people working in those language communities
> work at adding the missing bits to those upstream
>
>
> On 14 Jan 2014 06:04, "David Airlie" < airl...@redhat.com > wrote:
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I've gotten a build tag f21-llvm for attempting to rebase rawhide to llvm
> > 3.4
>
> Assuming there aren't any major stumbling blocks, are there any plans to back
> port llvm 3.4 to f20 (like wa
Am 14.01.2014 13:18, schrieb Martin Stransky:
> On 01/13/2014 09:33 PM, Peter Robinson wrote:
> [...]
>
>>> It's the same as the gtk2 package, gstreamer support does not depend on
>>> toolkit. IIRC the test package has gstreamer enabled as well as the latest
>>> official Fedora Firefox builds.
>
On 01/13/2014 09:33 PM, Peter Robinson wrote:
[...]
It's the same as the gtk2 package, gstreamer support does not depend on
toolkit. IIRC the test package has gstreamer enabled as well as the latest
official Fedora Firefox builds.
It was said in bug [1] comment 9 that it wouldn't be enabled un
On 01/13/2014 09:04 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 13.01.2014 20:50, schrieb Martin Stransky:
On 01/13/2014 05:57 PM, Peter Robinson wrote:
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 3:49 PM, Martin Stransky wrote:
On 01/13/2014 04:41 PM, Josh Boyer wrote:
I don't say it's important/newsworthy. It's just FYI.
On 01/14/2014 01:09 AM, Orion Poplawski wrote:
> On 01/13/2014 03:26 PM, Miroslav Suchy wrote:
>> > I just deployed new version of Copr at:
>> > http://copr.fedoraproject.org
>> >
>> > It have only one feature: you can now build in epel-7-x86_64!
>> >
>> > To be precise - the name "epel" is lit
My apologies if you felt i misquoted you, i didn't intend that.
I do plenty of SaaS deployments at $DAYJOB, and i can easily pack hundreds
to thousands // running containers on a single machine.
Remember that Fedora is on the innovative side of the distro spectrum, yes
vhost is the present, but co
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1052859
Ralf Corsepius changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #1 from Ralf Co
On 01/13/2014 04:11 PM, H. Guémar wrote:
there's a draft, i suggest that you start checking it.
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Go
A couple of questions and comments. I think overall, the approach works.
# Packaging Libraries
This does not mention libraries which use cgo. Sho
Am 14.01.2014 11:53, schrieb H. Guémar:
>> only over my dead body i would start wrap more and more layers on top of
>> already virtualized infrastructures
>
> Containers have little to almost no overhead, they bring more isolation (and
> i can't wait docker/selinux
> integration for more secur
> only over my dead body i would start wrap more and more layers on top of
already virtualized infrastructures
Containers have little to almost no overhead, they bring more isolation
(and i can't wait docker/selinux integration for more security), the FS
layered approach allows to save spaces.
Yea
Am 14.01.2014 10:50, schrieb Nicolas Mailhot:
> Le Dim 12 janvier 2014 19:43, Reindl Harald a écrit :
>>
>>
>> Am 12.01.2014 19:39, schrieb Adam Williamson:
>>> Have you looked at what people are installing on Fedora lately? Have you
>>> looked at how much PHP stuff there is out there vs. what we
Le Lun 13 janvier 2014 18:21, Colin Walters a écrit :
> Many upstream build/deployment systems have substantial portions of the
> metadata (BuildRequires/Requires) that RPM needs, it just needs to be
> manually maintained/duplicated in the spec.
And they are usually missing substancial portions
Le Dim 12 janvier 2014 19:43, Reindl Harald a écrit :
>
>
> Am 12.01.2014 19:39, schrieb Adam Williamson:
>> Have you looked at what people are installing on Fedora lately? Have you
>> looked at how much PHP stuff there is out there vs. what we have
>> packaged 'properly'? Java? Ruby? Do you know
Le Lun 13 janvier 2014 01:37, Adam Williamson a écrit :
> On Sun, 2014-01-12 at 19:43 +0100, Reindl Harald wrote:
>>
>> Am 12.01.2014 19:39, schrieb Adam Williamson:
>> > Have you looked at what people are installing on Fedora lately? Have
>> you
>> > looked at how much PHP stuff there is out ther
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 10:34 AM, Nicolas Mailhot
wrote:
>
> Le Lun 13 janvier 2014 21:33, drago01 a écrit :
>
>> No it cannot. Most of this flash implemenations only work to play
>> flash you don't want anyway (i.e ads).
>
> Unfortunately I've found out a lot of companies that grew around brick a
Le Lun 13 janvier 2014 21:33, drago01 a écrit :
> No it cannot. Most of this flash implemenations only work to play
> flash you don't want anyway (i.e ads).
Unfortunately I've found out a lot of companies that grew around brick and
mortar distribution only describe their products in flashified v
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 11/18/2013 04:54 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> jsynacek:BADURL:xferstats-2.16.tar.gz:xferstats
xferstats.off.net seems to be down. I'll try to contact the author who is
mentioned in the manpage. In case I get no response, should I just remove the
URL?
On 14 Jan 2014 06:04, "David Airlie" wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> I've gotten a build tag f21-llvm for attempting to rebase rawhide to llvm
3.4
Assuming there aren't any major stumbling blocks, are there any plans to
back port llvm 3.4 to f20 (like was done for llvm 3.3 in f19)?
I need clang 3.4 for m
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hello all,
there are a lot of pidgin bugs (mainly crashes reported via abrt) that have
been piling up in the bugzilla for quite some time now and nobody is taking a
look at them. Although I am a co-maintainer, I can't devote much time to
pidgin. I
78 matches
Mail list logo
