Someone should also take Numix.
On 22 February 2014 01:22, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Feb 2014 20:25:01 +0100
> Athmane Madjoudj wrote:
>
>> Hello
>>
>> I'm orphaning greybird[1] theme suite for Xfce due to lack of free
>> time.
>>
>> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/acls/name/greybird
Thanks for your hard work on these packages in the past.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Hi!
I submitted update for tcllib 1.11 -> 1.15. If your software use it please
test for compatibility and in case of problem feel free to decrease the karma.
Dmitrij.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduc
On Feb 21, 2014, at 2:38 PM, john.flor...@dart.biz wrote:
> That makes a lot of sense, but I'd like to add that when doing custom
> partitioning, you can easily spend the bulk of your actual interaction time
> getting the partitioning customized exactly the way you want and when
> anaconda cra
Alexander Todorov wrote:
> My question is:
> **Is everyone, especially package maintainers OK with me filing 1000+ bugs
> ?**
NO!
Especially not for something like this. There is no requirement for a test
suite to exist, and there should not be such a requirement. If the test
suite does not exi
(I'm going to reply to the grandparent post here too, to avoid sending 2
separate mails.)
> On 02/20/2014 11:50 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
>> Fedora isn't signed up to *use* it yet. We can still make the choice
>> whether we want to or not, I believe.
IMHO, we definitely want to use these feature
Vivek Goyal wrote:
> What is fast forwarding commits from f21 to f20. I guess you are saying
> there are bunch of commits in master branch and you want to now apply
> those commits to f20 branch too?
"Fast-forwarding" is git jargon for doing a merge that simply accepts ALL
commits from master int
# Fedora Quality Assurance Meeting
# Date: 2014-02-24
# Time: 16:00 UTC
(https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Infrastructure/UTCHowto)
# Location: #fedora-meeting on irc.freenode.net
Greetings testers!
It's meeting time again on Monday! .next efforts are ramping up again,
with the WGs starting to talk
On 21.02.2014 23:23, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Sandro Mani wrote:
This is what I have now [1].
[1] http://smani.fedorapeople.org/salome/salome-kernel-7.3.0/
The string "kernel module" in the summaries and descriptions is misleading.
(It can mislead users into thinking this is a module for the Linux
commit a8541a82c79c7fa874e74b356e3bcecb000af8ec
Author: David Dick
Date: Sat Feb 22 09:46:52 2014 +1100
Initial import (#1066842).
.gitignore |1 +
perl-Net-SMTPS.spec | 69 +++
sources |1 +
3 files changed, 7
Dennis Gilmore wrote:
> should be a absolute non starter, many installs happen interactively
> and would never get the file
At least 2 possible solutions:
(a) Write the file in Anaconda (at least for non-live installs, live
installs can and should get it from the spin kickstart), add a spoke to
Sandro Mani wrote:
> This is what I have now [1].
> [1] http://smani.fedorapeople.org/salome/salome-kernel-7.3.0/
The string "kernel module" in the summaries and descriptions is misleading.
(It can mislead users into thinking this is a module for the Linux kernel,
when actually this is just the co
Am 21.02.2014 23:30, schrieb Kevin Kofler:
> Colin Walters wrote:
>> That would mean that if we wanted to enable a new service by default,
>> admins wouldn't get it on upgrades.
>
> … which is how it should be. I don't want upgrades to mess with my set of
> enabled services. (E.g., I found it ext
Adam Williamson wrote:
> Very much +1. Putting it in kickstarts is a worse tying problem than
> putting it in a package: it ties this configuration mechanism to a
> system for creating deliverables, which is what kickstart is. We need to
> be moving away from having configuration in kickstarts, not
Colin Walters wrote:
> That would mean that if we wanted to enable a new service by default,
> admins wouldn't get it on upgrades.
… which is how it should be. I don't want upgrades to mess with my set of
enabled services. (E.g., I found it extremely rude from firewalld to enable
itself by defau
On Fri, 2014-02-21 at 16:38 -0500, john.flor...@dart.biz wrote:
> > With the best of intentions, we'd gone from a reluctant exception to the
> > 'no choice' design to a dropdown which included two very different
> > complex choices: LVM and btrfs. So now the installer path which was
> > originally
> From: awill...@redhat.com
> Date: 02/21/2014 15:20
> Historically, QA and anaconda more or less agreed on an approach whereby
> the 'guided' partitioning path would be expected to work extremely
> reliably: QA would undertake to test every (well, nearly every) route
> through that path regularly
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 02/21/2014 02:41 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> On 02/21/2014 02:06 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
>> On 02/21/2014 01:58 PM, Simo Sorce wrote:
>>> On Fri, 2014-02-21 at 13:28 -0500, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Has
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 02:41:31PM -0500, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> >
> >
> > I'm having a parallel conversation about this with Toshio on
> > #fedora-devel right now. He believes it may be possible to get
> > Django to be parallel-installable on the base system without SCLs
> > and is running
On Fri, 2014-02-21 at 17:08 +0100, Phil Knirsch wrote:
> Installer is still a hot topic, but thats nothing we could resolve
> during our meeting and which might have to be brought up with FESCO again.
So, as cmurf has been trying to point out on desktop@ , we (QA) have
some concerns in this area
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1068742
Nathanael Noblet changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #3 from Na
On Fri, 21 Feb 2014 14:55:48 +, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> If you have code that can fairly reliably detect whether a test suite
> exists in the source tar.gz, then I think you would be justified
> in filing bugs for spec files which have not enabled the test suite.
It would need to be a tes
On Fri, 21 Feb 2014 20:25:01 +0100
Athmane Madjoudj wrote:
> Hello
>
> I'm orphaning greybird[1] theme suite for Xfce due to lack of free
> time.
>
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/acls/name/greybird
I'll take it.
Co-maintainers welcome.
kevin
signature.asc
Description: PGP signat
> From: sgall...@redhat.com
> To:
> Date: 02/21/2014 14:41
> Subject: Re: python-django update to Django-1.6
> Sent by: devel-boun...@lists.fedoraproject.org
>
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 02/21/2014 02:06 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> > On 02/21/2014 01:58 PM, Simo
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 02/21/2014 02:06 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> On 02/21/2014 01:58 PM, Simo Sorce wrote:
>> On Fri, 2014-02-21 at 13:28 -0500, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
>>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1
>>>
>>> On 02/21/2014 01:14 PM, Matthias Rung
> From: mru...@matthias-runge.de
> Date: 02/21/2014 13:11
>
> On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 08:40:52AM -0500, john.flor...@dart.biz wrote:
> > I too would much prefer this approach. For somebody like me who wants
to
> > maintain company-private packages based on django, this affords more
> > flexibi
Hello
I'm orphaning greybird[1] theme suite for Xfce due to lack of free time.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/acls/name/greybird
Thanks.
-- Athmane
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://f
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 02/21/2014 01:58 PM, Simo Sorce wrote:
> On Fri, 2014-02-21 at 13:28 -0500, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1
>>
>> On 02/21/2014 01:14 PM, Matthias Runge wrote:
>>> On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 10:36:24AM -0500,
On Fri, 2014-02-21 at 13:28 -0500, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 02/21/2014 01:14 PM, Matthias Runge wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 10:36:24AM -0500, Simo Sorce wrote:
> >> +1 I still have an application that is slowly moving to 1.5 but
> >>
Hi folks,
I will orphan my packages, because I have no time to shoulder
the responsibility of my packages anymore.
FEDORA:
fife -- Cross platform game creation framework
florence -- Extensible scalable on-screen virtual keyboard for GNOME
opentracker -- Bit Torrent Tracker
libowfat -- Reimplement
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 01:28:54PM -0500, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> On 02/21/2014 01:14 PM, Matthias Runge wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 10:36:24AM -0500, Simo Sorce wrote:
> >> +1 I still have an application that is slowly moving to 1.5 but
> >> not there yet and it is painful to have to kee
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 07:57:34AM -0500, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> Have we sorted out how exactly we want to build this in Fedora? I'm
> still in favor of killing off the python-django package in favor of
> python-django16 and python-django15.
We haven't sorted this yet. Still I'd prefer a kind
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 02/21/2014 01:14 PM, Matthias Runge wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 10:36:24AM -0500, Simo Sorce wrote:
>> +1 I still have an application that is slowly moving to 1.5 but
>> not there yet and it is painful to have to keep an older Fedora
>> Version
On Fri, 2014-02-21 at 16:48 +0200, Alexander Todorov wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 9:30 AM, Stephen Gallagher
> > wrote:
> >> Please make sure to follow
> >> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mass_bug_filing to the letter. If you
> >> do not, it will make life very difficult.
> >>
>
> Thanks,
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 10:36:24AM -0500, Simo Sorce wrote:
> +1 I still have an application that is slowly moving to 1.5 but not
> there yet and it is painful to have to keep an older Fedora Version
> running just because of that.
I hear you! My current plan would be, to provide at least a
python-
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 08:40:52AM -0500, john.flor...@dart.biz wrote:
> I too would much prefer this approach. For somebody like me who wants to
> maintain company-private packages based on django, this affords more
> flexibility. I realize it may always mean more packaging work to keep
> sev
Hi Jerry,
Closing as notabug is perfectly valid solution in your case. I also have a
bunch of such packages myself. The thing is that there is no way for this to
have been known by the automated tool thus we end up with such false positives.
I have to also add that the percentage of false posit
On 02/21/2014 09:31 AM, Jerry James wrote:
> Third, developers are offered two options in those bugs: (1) don't do anything
> and an automatic tool will make the change for you on or after March 17, or
> (2) make the change to java-headless yourself. I have one package for which I
> need a third o
I've got a few comments and questions about the recently filed bugs asking
us to switch from Requires: java to Requires: java-headless. First, the
bugs list some web pages to view for more information. Number two on that
list is this:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java\#BuildRequires_
Main meeting agenda for today was a discussion about the Workstation
Tech Spec and any implications, changes or actions it would require from
Base.
Matthias Clasen from the Workstaing WG joined us today and every a long
discussion and review specifically around the Core Services and
Features
On 2/21/14, 9:25 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 04:19:29PM +0100, Miroslav Lichvar wrote:
>> On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 02:50:12PM +, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
>>> On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 09:38:56AM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
Personally, I don't think %check is a good i
On Fri, 2014-02-21 at 08:40 -0500, john.flor...@dart.biz wrote:
> > From: sgall...@redhat.com
> > Have we sorted out how exactly we want to build this in Fedora? I'm
> > still in favor of killing off the python-django package in favor of
> > python-django16 and python-django15.
>
>
> I too would
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 7:09 AM, Jeff Sheltren wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 7:47 PM, Dave Johansen wrote:
>
>>
>> Yes, waiting did work for that issue (
>> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2014-February/195156.html),
>> but this is another issue and appears to that the building
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 04:19:29PM +0100, Miroslav Lichvar wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 02:50:12PM +, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 09:38:56AM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
> > > Personally, I don't think %check is a good idea at all.
> >
> > I think the benefit depends
На 21.02.2014 17:16, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski написа:
On Friday, 21 February 2014 at 16:08, Alexander Todorov wrote:
[...]
Guys I can do both.
1) Report packages which *have* test suites but they are *not* executed in
%check
2) Report packages which *don't* have any test suites at all.
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 02:50:12PM +, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 09:38:56AM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
> > Personally, I don't think %check is a good idea at all.
>
> I think the benefit depends on the level of patching the Fedora maintainer
> is doing. If they are shipp
On Friday, 21 February 2014 at 16:08, Alexander Todorov wrote:
[...]
> Guys I can do both.
>
> 1) Report packages which *have* test suites but they are *not* executed in
> %check
>
> 2) Report packages which *don't* have any test suites at all.
>
> 1) is easy but I'm more interested in 2)
Coul
Looks like reporting missing test suites in Bugzilla is not accepted. I guess
it's just me who prefers Bugzilla compared to other media.
I *will use the Wiki* for this.
On the topic of tests not executed in %check I *will use Bugzilla* but Alexander
Kurtakov brings up another angle - tests ex
On 02/21/2014 03:53 PM, Josh Boyer wrote:
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 9:50 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
If the maintainer is including any non-trivial patches that I think that
enabling %check should almost be mandatory to ensure they are not causing
regressions through their patches.
I don't
На 21.02.2014 16:58, Tom Hughes написа:
On 21/02/14 14:57, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 02:53:55PM +, Tom Hughes wrote:
On 21/02/14 14:51, Alexander Todorov wrote:
I want to track which packages *DO NOT* have any tests and later be able
to focus on creating them (be i
Am 21.02.2014 15:51, schrieb Alexander Todorov:
> На 21.02.2014 16:27, Richard W.M. Jones написа:
>> Is it correct that you're only going to be filing bugs when upstream
>> tarballs already contain test suites, but they are just not enabled in
>> the Fedora package?
>
> I want to track which pac
On 02/21/2014 03:51 PM, Alexander Todorov wrote:
На 21.02.2014 16:27, Richard W.M. Jones написа:
Is it correct that you're only going to be filing bugs when upstream
tarballs already contain test suites, but they are just not enabled in
the Fedora package?
Hi Richard,
I meant just the opposite
- Original Message -
> From: "Josh Boyer"
> To: "Daniel P. Berrange" , "Development discussions
> related to Fedora"
>
> Sent: Friday, February 21, 2014 4:53:03 PM
> Subject: Re: May I file 1000 bugs aka upstream test suite tracking
>
> On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 9:50 AM, Daniel P. Berrang
На 21.02.2014 16:55, Daniel P. Berrange написа:
If you have code that can fairly reliably detect whether a test suite
exists in the source tar.gz, then I think you would be justified
in filing bugs for spec files which have not enabled the test suite.
At present I'm aware of 11 different loca
На 21.02.2014 16:53, Tom Hughes написа:
Why would you file a bug in the Fedora bug tracker when the package has no test
suite upstream? That makes no sense - if the upstream package has no tests then
the bug belongs upstream not in Fedora.
Same reason you file kernel bugs in Bugzilla.redhat
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 9:56 AM, Alexander Todorov wrote:
> На 21.02.2014 16:54, Stephen Gallagher написа:
>
>
>> Please do not file hundreds of bugs that will be closed WONTFIX. It's
>> a waste of everyone's time.
>>
>
> Hi Stephen,
> how do you propose to track this then? I don't think a wiki pa
On 21/02/14 14:57, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 02:53:55PM +, Tom Hughes wrote:
On 21/02/14 14:51, Alexander Todorov wrote:
I want to track which packages *DO NOT* have any tests and later be able
to focus on creating them (be it working with volunteers, GSoC
participa
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 02:53:55PM +, Tom Hughes wrote:
> On 21/02/14 14:51, Alexander Todorov wrote:
>
> >I want to track which packages *DO NOT* have any tests and later be able
> >to focus on creating them (be it working with volunteers, GSoC
> >participants or whoever is willing to step up
- Original Message -
> From: "Alexander Todorov"
> To: "Discussion of RPM packaging standards and practices for Fedora"
> ,
> "Development discussions related to Fedora"
> Cc: "For testing and quality assurance of Fedora releases"
>
> Sent: Friday, February 21, 2014 4:51:52 PM
> Subjec
На 21.02.2014 16:54, Stephen Gallagher написа:
Please do not file hundreds of bugs that will be closed WONTFIX. It's
a waste of everyone's time.
Hi Stephen,
how do you propose to track this then? I don't think a wiki page is more
comfortable than Bugzilla.
And why the heck would you CLOSE
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 04:22:42PM +0200, Alexander Todorov wrote:
> Hi guys,
> (note: devel, packaging and test lists) previously I've done a
> little experiment and counted how many packages are likely to have
> upstream test suites and how many don't:
> http://atodorov.org/blog/2013/12/24/upstre
On Fri, 2014-02-21 at 16:51 +0200, Alexander Todorov wrote:
> I want to track which packages *DO NOT* have any tests and later be able to
> focus on creating them (be it working with volunteers, GSoC participants or
> whoever is willing to step up to this task).
In that case, I suggest simply k
On 21/02/14 14:51, Alexander Todorov wrote:
I want to track which packages *DO NOT* have any tests and later be able
to focus on creating them (be it working with volunteers, GSoC
participants or whoever is willing to step up to this task).
Why would you file a bug in the Fedora bug tracker wh
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 02/21/2014 09:51 AM, Alexander Todorov wrote:
> На 21.02.2014 16:27, Richard W.M. Jones написа:
>> Is it correct that you're only going to be filing bugs when
>> upstream tarballs already contain test suites, but they are just
>> not enabled in the
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 9:50 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 09:38:56AM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
>> > That being said, a lot of packages in Fedora are simply that: packaged
>> > upstreams. Many (most?) package maintainers are not developers of that
>> > package and as such
На 21.02.2014 16:27, Richard W.M. Jones написа:
Is it correct that you're only going to be filing bugs when upstream
tarballs already contain test suites, but they are just not enabled in
the Fedora package?
Hi Richard,
I meant just the opposite. However I will also do what you suggest but this
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 09:38:56AM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 9:30 AM, Stephen Gallagher
> wrote:
> > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> > On 02/21/2014 09:22 AM, Alexander Todorov wrote:
> >> Hi guys, (note: devel, packaging and test lists) previously
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 9:30 AM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
Please make sure to follow
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mass_bug_filing to the letter. If you
do not, it will make life very difficult.
Thanks, I'll take a look at it and follow it when it comes to mass filing of
bugs.
На 21.02.20
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 9:30 AM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 02/21/2014 09:22 AM, Alexander Todorov wrote:
>> Hi guys, (note: devel, packaging and test lists) previously I've
>> done a little experiment and counted how many packages are likely
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1067882
--- Comment #1 from Fedora Update System ---
perl-WWW-Curl-4.16-1.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-WWW-Curl-4.16-1.fc20
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 02/21/2014 09:22 AM, Alexander Todorov wrote:
> Hi guys, (note: devel, packaging and test lists) previously I've
> done a little experiment and counted how many packages are likely
> to have upstream test suites and how many don't:
> http://atodoro
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 04:22:42PM +0200, Alexander Todorov wrote:
> Hi guys,
> (note: devel, packaging and test lists) previously I've done a
> little experiment and counted how many packages are likely to have
> upstream test suites and how many don't:
> http://atodorov.org/blog/2013/12/24/upstre
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1067879
Petr Pisar changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |CLOSED
Fixed In Version|
Hi guys,
(note: devel, packaging and test lists) previously I've done a little experiment
and counted how many packages are likely to have upstream test suites and how
many don't:
http://atodorov.org/blog/2013/12/24/upstream-test-suite-status-of-fedora-20/
In general around 35% do have test su
commit 9677bdb741d0a59b026ec8e33e686e4840537790
Author: Petr Písař
Date: Fri Feb 21 14:42:08 2014 +0100
0.043 bump
perl-HTTP-Tiny.spec |5 -
1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
---
diff --git a/perl-HTTP-Tiny.spec b/perl-HTTP-Tiny.spec
index 6069f02..c2978c2 100644
--
> From: sgall...@redhat.com
> Have we sorted out how exactly we want to build this in Fedora? I'm
> still in favor of killing off the python-django package in favor of
> python-django16 and python-django15.
I too would much prefer this approach. For somebody like me who wants to
maintain compan
Hello,
the package cleanfeed is now orphaned. There are no comaintainers: Feel
free to take it.
Thanks and regards,
--
Tomáš Smetana
Platform Engineering, Red Hat
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 02/21/2014 02:48 AM, Matthias Runge wrote:
> On 02/20/2014 08:19 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
>
>
>> Just to bring this thread back to life, we're getting to a point
>> where support for Django 1.6 is becoming more and more
>> necessary. Is there
Hi,
devscript currently misses a depdendency on sensible-utils, which I've
now packaged and submitted for review:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1067917
The package is trivial.
Happy to review in exchange.
Thanks,
Sandro
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
http
Agenda:
- Discussion of Workstation Tech Spec[1][2] and define action items
for Base from it
- Open Floor
Thanks & regards, Phil
[1]
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/desktop/2014-February/009136.html
[2] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Workstation/Technical_Specification
--
Philip
On 02/20/2014 11:50 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Thu, 2014-02-20 at 14:44 +, Colin Walters wrote:
>> On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 7:27 AM, Florian Festi
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> We are currently working on adding weak and rich dependencies to
>>> upstream RPM. There are basically two parts:
>>>
>> Is
81 matches
Mail list logo
