Re: carbon-c-relay review swap

2015-03-28 Thread gil
Hi if you want can take one of these https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1202470 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1199841 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1199842 regards gil Il 28/03/2015 22:58, Piotr Popieluch ha scritto: I am looking for a review for carbon-c-r

carbon-c-relay review swap

2015-03-28 Thread Piotr Popieluch
I am looking for a review for carbon-c-relay and offering a review swap, I really want to get this in. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1190390 I've also got some nodejs module review requests pending, also doing a review swap for any of them: https://tinyurl.com/oeyju9l (this has lower

Re: Texlive packaging

2015-03-28 Thread Paulo César Pereira de Andrade
2015-03-28 16:40 GMT-03:00 Florian Weimer : > * Matthew Miller: > >> On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 08:28:21PM +0100, drago01 wrote: >>> Actually "machine generated" isn't per se bad ... it saves a lot of >>> effort and should be done more (for other packages too where >>> possible). >>> Why waste man po

Re: Packages which are non-compliant with Emacs packaging guidelines

2015-03-28 Thread Jonathan Underwood
On 28 March 2015 at 19:28, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > On Sat, Mar 28, 2015 at 06:05:11PM +, Jonathan Underwood wrote: >> rjonesemacs-common-tuareg > > Update in Rawhide: > > http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/emacs-common-tuareg.git/commit/?id=4e05b9b64d9a6723d0b72b9b7319428ee670cf0d > t

Re: Quick C++ question for C++ experts :)

2015-03-28 Thread Paulo César Pereira de Andrade
2015-03-28 16:06 GMT-03:00 Paulo César Pereira de Andrade : > Is this expected to not compile with -fno-implicit-templates? > > ---%<--- > $ cat test.cc > #include > std::string test(int i) > { > std::string t; > std::string s = "("; > t = ""; > for (int r = i; r; r>>=1) { >

Re: Texlive packaging

2015-03-28 Thread Florian Weimer
* Matthew Miller: > On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 08:28:21PM +0100, drago01 wrote: >> Actually "machine generated" isn't per se bad ... it saves a lot of >> effort and should be done more (for other packages too where >> possible). >> Why waste man power for something that can be automated? >> >> As f

Re: Packages which are non-compliant with Emacs packaging guidelines

2015-03-28 Thread Richard W.M. Jones
On Sat, Mar 28, 2015 at 06:05:11PM +, Jonathan Underwood wrote: > rjonesemacs-common-tuareg Update in Rawhide: http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/emacs-common-tuareg.git/commit/?id=4e05b9b64d9a6723d0b72b9b7319428ee670cf0d Rich. -- Richard Jones, Virtualization Group, Red Hat http://peo

Quick C++ question for C++ experts :)

2015-03-28 Thread Paulo César Pereira de Andrade
Is this expected to not compile with -fno-implicit-templates? ---%<--- $ cat test.cc #include std::string test(int i) { std::string t; std::string s = "("; t = ""; for (int r = i; r; r>>=1) { if (r & 1) t = "1" + t; else t = "0" + t; }

Packages which are non-compliant with Emacs packaging guidelines

2015-03-28 Thread Jonathan Underwood
Hi, Presently a lot of packages are not complying with the Emacs packaging guidelines[1]. These guidelines have been in place in their current form since Fedora 16, so it's probably time to start fixing packages. The lists below detail packages with various problems, and their package owners. [1]

Re: Texlive packaging

2015-03-28 Thread Paulo César Pereira de Andrade
2015-03-28 13:26 GMT-03:00 Jonathan Underwood : > On 28 March 2015 at 15:07, Paulo César Pereira de Andrade > wrote: >> I maintained a slowly evolving approach in Mandriva for some years, >> (but now it is quickly approaching one year I left Mandriva...), see the >> main script at >> https://abf

Re: What happened to xorg-x11-drv-amd?

2015-03-28 Thread Luya Tshimbalanga
On 28/03/15 04:51 AM, drago01 wrote: >> >> Thanks. I submitted a bug report to the right component. >> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1206733 > Your logs in the bug are with "nomodeset" that's not really helpful > you need to attack logs with nomodeset not set. > If the system does not

Re: Proposal: Drop applications that have FTBFS for the last two releases from the AppStream metadata

2015-03-28 Thread Rex Dieter
Richard Hughes wrote: > The end result would be that we don't show applications that have > failed the previous two releases mass rebuilds in GNOME Software i.e. > we don't show f19 packages in f21, and we don't show f20 packages in > f22. Should be pretty non-controversial, right? The kind of sof

Re: Texlive packaging

2015-03-28 Thread Jonathan Underwood
On 28 March 2015 at 15:07, Paulo César Pereira de Andrade wrote: > I maintained a slowly evolving approach in Mandriva for some years, > (but now it is quickly approaching one year I left Mandriva...), see the > main script at > https://abf.rosalinux.ru/openmandriva/texlive-tlpkg/blob/master/tlp

Re: python-yubico updates (testing wanted)

2015-03-28 Thread Kevin Fenzi
On Fri, 27 Mar 2015 17:24:57 -0400 Nathaniel McCallum wrote: ...snip... > When the F21 update was being automatically pushed to stable, > taskotron reported that the upgradepath test failed and that push to > stable was unavailable. The failure was because F22 has a lower > version than F21.

Re: Texlive packaging

2015-03-28 Thread Paulo César Pereira de Andrade
2015-03-27 16:58 GMT-03:00 Matthew Miller : > On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 08:28:21PM +0100, drago01 wrote: >> Actually "machine generated" isn't per se bad ... it saves a lot of >> effort and should be done more (for other packages too where >> possible). >> Why waste man power for something that can

orphaning a few packages

2015-03-28 Thread François Cami
Hello, I'm orphaning a few packages as I do not use them anymore. * scons * jed * greylistd * and the zathura stack: girara, zathura, zathura-cb, zathura-djvu, zathura-pdf-poppler, zathura-ps (maintained by contyk) Regards, François -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://adm

Re: What happened to xorg-x11-drv-amd?

2015-03-28 Thread drago01
On Sat, Mar 28, 2015 at 12:51 PM, drago01 wrote: > On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 11:21 PM, Luya Tshimbalanga > wrote: >> On 27/03/15 03:02 PM, drago01 wrote: >>> On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 11:00 PM, Luya Tshimbalanga >>> wrote: I recently bought an Asus X550Z which comes with a Quad-Core A10 and Dua

Re: What happened to xorg-x11-drv-amd?

2015-03-28 Thread drago01
On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 11:21 PM, Luya Tshimbalanga wrote: > On 27/03/15 03:02 PM, drago01 wrote: >> On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 11:00 PM, Luya Tshimbalanga >> wrote: >>> I recently bought an Asus X550Z which comes with a Quad-Core A10 and Dual >>> graphic radeon. I am surprised to find out xorg-x11-

Re: Proposal: Drop applications that have FTBFS for the last two releases from the AppStream metadata

2015-03-28 Thread Peter Robinson
On Sat, Mar 28, 2015 at 8:44 AM, Richard Hughes wrote: > The end result would be that we don't show applications that have > failed the previous two releases mass rebuilds in GNOME Software i.e. > we don't show f19 packages in f21, and we don't show f20 packages in > f22. Should be pretty non-cont

Proposal: Drop applications that have FTBFS for the last two releases from the AppStream metadata

2015-03-28 Thread Richard Hughes
The end result would be that we don't show applications that have failed the previous two releases mass rebuilds in GNOME Software i.e. we don't show f19 packages in f21, and we don't show f20 packages in f22. Should be pretty non-controversial, right? The kind of software that failed two rebuilds