was rather
impressive, see
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=827061
and I'd expect something similar in other distributions too. Mostly
this is head-ache of upstreams but it might be good manners to file
upstream error tickets early :)
--
Antti Järvinen
--
devel ma
Michael Schwendt writes:
> Over the last years I've talked to quite some people. Some simply find
> the package review process "too embarrassing", because the tickets are
> world-readable. Once they learn that the package they offer is full of
> mistakes, they consider it "public shaming" and
et included in release in Oct?
--
Antti Järvinen, proud reporter of
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1202063
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Kevin Kofler writes:
> For applications that support both? In the absence of other criteria (e.g.
> features that are not yet ported, or conversely, features that require Qt
> 5), the rule of thumb is to build against Qt 5 on Fedora 22 and newer, and
> against Qt 4 on Fedora 21 and older.
T
my address inside
Classified ads is 6AC2D159AB3A0B0F241DD6D12E4A1673588DD0E8.
--
Antti Järvinen, Oulu, Finland
-BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-
Version: GnuPG v1
mQGiBDi9E/8RBACkxa+Ri4/HApuv5XmnATpnvDBu8qlAtOn55x4iiZ2xpb+EF/lG
nQpv7qSffemUwe8bb8t7Ob8DbIXjd
