On 09/07/2011 05:47 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> As someone on the other side of this (although not strongly, I could
> be convinced), I don't think thats my concern at all...
>
> * As a maintainer you should only be pushing an update you feel
>works/fixes something anyhow. Shouldn't that be an im
On 07/11/2011 04:07 PM, Maciej Małecki wrote:
> Hello everyone!
>
> As it is my first mail to this list, let me briefly introduce myself:
> I am Maciej Małecki, software developer based in Poznań, Poland. I've
> been using Fedora since F11 (and I love it).
>
> The point is: is there a chance to hav
On 06/23/2011 09:55 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-06-23 at 20:22 +0400, Pavel Alexeev (aka Pahan-Hubbitus)
> wrote:
>> To fix [1] and [2] dependency rebuild required.
>> Scratch build successful [3], if someone can help on it, I'm ready
>> commit and push changes in git.
>> Rebuild for
On 06/22/2011 02:09 PM, Martin Stransky wrote:
> On 06/22/2011 10:56 PM, Nathanael D. Noblet wrote:
>> On 06/22/2011 02:55 PM, Heiko Adams wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>> will Fedora 15's version of Firefox (currently 4.0.1) be updated to
>>> Firefox 5?
>>>
>>> The following koji builds let me asume it:
>>> htt
On 04/21/2011 12:11 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Adam Williamson wrote:
>> No, they always just require +1 from anyone (or an X day wait). This
>> happens to be equivalent to the lowest possible autokarma setting, but
>> that's just a coincidence, it doesn't *mean* anything. If you set
>> autokarma hi
On 04/13/2011 03:38 PM, Julian Sikorski wrote:
> Dear List,
>
> I was just trying to update gnome-mplayer (not in fedora, but that is
> irrelevant) which migrated from gconf to gsettings. The problem is, that
> the standard scriptlets [1] do not run on upgrades, leaving the package
> in a not worki
On 04/13/2011 04:01 AM, Steve Clark wrote:
> On 04/13/2011 03:26 AM, Christopher Aillon wrote:
>> On 04/12/2011 06:40 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>>> On 04/13/2011 06:47 AM, Christopher Aillon wrote:
>>>> commit 7986a8567a9dbb2a6f8187b91a021d5ad350f96f
>>>>
On 04/12/2011 06:40 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> On 04/13/2011 06:47 AM, Christopher Aillon wrote:
>> commit 7986a8567a9dbb2a6f8187b91a021d5ad350f96f
>> Author: Christopher Aillon
>> Date: Tue Apr 12 18:15:07 2011 -0700
>>
>> Default browser is no longer rea
On 04/12/2011 11:17 AM, Jochen Schmitt wrote:
>
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Hallo,
>
> because I want to make a downgrade of the blender package on F15
> I have increate the Epoch in the sPEC file. Unfortunately, I have got the
> following error message from koji:
>
> Gene
On 04/11/2011 05:45 PM, Christopher Aillon wrote:
> gnuchess v5.08 is now licensed under the GPLv3+.
>
> Already built in rawhide.
>
> Will push builds to F15,F14,F13 later this week.
Same for xboard, v4.5.1 now in rawhide.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedorapr
gnuchess v5.08 is now licensed under the GPLv3+.
Already built in rawhide.
Will push builds to F15,F14,F13 later this week.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
On 04/11/2011 12:13 AM, Tim Flink wrote:
> On 04/10/2011 07:39 PM, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
>> On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 18:19:26 -0700,
>> Christopher Aillon wrote:
>>>
>>> I just realized today for the first time that our nightlies are based on
>>> stab
On 04/10/2011 06:39 PM, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 18:19:26 -0700,
>Christopher Aillon wrote:
>>
>> I just realized today for the first time that our nightlies are based on
>> stable, not testing. I think that's something we need to add
On 04/10/2011 01:34 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Sun, 2011-04-10 at 12:45 -0400, Doug Ledford wrote:
>
>> And here we are, about to go down the same road again. I have an update
>> in updates-testing, it's getting no love, and the package that's in the
>> release is *known broken*. It has not
On 11/15/2010 08:57 AM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Nov 2010 05:16:43 -0500 (EST)
> Jaroslav Skarvada wrote:
>
>> Please could any FESCo member approve the takeover of rrdtool
>> (according to nonresponsive package maintainers policy)? Or should I
>> open ticket for this?
>
> I'll approve it a
On 04/08/2011 01:19 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:
> Would it make more sense to refer to these as "Alpha Candidate", "Beta
> Candidate" and "Release Candidate" ? ac{1,2,3}, bc{1,2}, rc1 ?
WFM!
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
On 04/08/2011 10:55 AM, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
> On Friday, April 08, 2011 12:37:17 PM Christopher Aillon wrote:
>> On 04/07/2011 08:38 PM, Andre Robatino wrote:
>>> Fedora 15 Beta RC1
>>
>> Please don't mix "beta" and "RC" together. "B
On 04/07/2011 08:38 PM, Andre Robatino wrote:
> Fedora 15 Beta RC1
Please don't mix "beta" and "RC" together. "Beta" and "RC" are two
distinct parts of the release cycle, so it's confusing to see them
together, just like it would be confusing to see an announcement about
"alpha beta".
--
deve
On 04/04/2011 12:48 PM, Orion Poplawski wrote:
>
> Okay, review is here:
>
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=693493
>
> basically just pulled from the thunderbird 3.1.9 release.
Awesome, thanks! If nobody beats me to it, I'll get a package review
done in the next few days. Would lo
On 04/01/2011 03:08 PM, Orion Poplawski wrote:
> I'm starting to take a look at this. First question is what version to
> package. The latest released version is 1.0b2 but F14 has 1.0b3pre of
> some unknown vintage. I'm guessing that moving back to 1.0b2 would cause
> problems, but I'm not sure.
U
On 04/01/2011 08:13 AM, Jerry James wrote:
> And, as an aside, that update still only has karma of 2. How do I
> tell if either of the respondents is a proventester? Is that
> indicated in the feedback somehow?
Their nick would show up as "username (proventester)" instead of just
"username". A
On 09/22/2010 09:20 PM, Ben Boeckel wrote:
> Christopher Aillon wrote:
>> On 08/25/2010 03:13 PM, Ben Boeckel wrote:
>>> Christopher Aillon wrote:
>>>> I missed the first notice of this go by, but I use zsh so can play with
>>>> it in the next few days
On 03/21/2011 12:26 PM, James Laska wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-03-21 at 18:49 +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>> How can I add tests for my package to Fedora AutoQA, eg. so that they
>> run (say) each time I build the package in Koji?
>>
>> (Note: I'm not asking how to run an AutoQA server myself.)
>
>
On 03/12/2011 04:33 AM, Kalev Lember wrote:
> On 03/10/2011 12:05 AM, Paul Johnson wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I've just submitted mono-2.10.1 for building and it's failed giving me
>>
>> make[8]: Entering directory
>> `/builddir/build/BUILD/mono-2.10.1/mcs/tools/gacutil'
>> MCS [basic] gacutil.exe
>>
On 02/14/2011 10:36 AM, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> I'm willing to be a co-maintainer, but probably won't get around to starting
> a review on my own for a while. I use it in F14, so I'll eventually want it
> in F15.
>
> Splitting it out is the right thing.
>
> One potential immediate issue is that it
On 02/14/2011 08:23 AM, Orion Poplawski wrote:
> Could someone illuminate what is happening with thunderbird-lightning for
> F15? Looks like it was moved from the sunbird package to the thunderbird
> package, only to be dropped from that:
>
> * Wed Feb 9 2011 Christopher Ail
On 02/13/2011 08:35 PM, Braden McDaniel wrote:
> On Sun, 2011-02-13 at 20:23 -0800, Christopher Aillon wrote:
>> On 02/13/2011 12:32 PM, Braden McDaniel wrote:
>>> Isn't there yet more breakage coming, as well?
>>>
>>>
>>> https://g
On 02/13/2011 12:32 PM, Braden McDaniel wrote:
> Isn't there yet more breakage coming, as well?
>
>
> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/mozilla.dev.tech.js-engine/5uQ9oIPyio4
>
> Perhaps we should just wait for this?
>
Those patches already landed in tracemonkey on Wednesday and
m
On 02/11/2011 11:49 AM, Jeffrey Ollie wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 9:23 AM, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
>>
>> asterisk
>
> This one should be taken care of now. I suspect that something in
> F15/rawhide changed that made Asterisk's build system think that an
> optional dependency was now a mandator
On 02/04/2011 03:38 PM, Petr Machata wrote:
> 04.02.2011 21:10, Bastien Nocera wrote:
>> Could we please either have boost.m4 packaged in Fedora, or at least
>> changes for running with the latest boost in Fedora integrated upstream?
>
> What you are hitting here seems more related to gcc or binuti
On 02/06/2011 01:38 PM, David wrote:
> On 2/6/2011 3:48 PM, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
>> On Sat, Feb 05, 2011 at 18:01:58 +,
>>"Paul F. Johnson" wrote:
>>>
>>> Any help on fixing these issues, please let me know - they're both
>>> driving me mad!!
>>
>> metacity and gnome-panel seem to be
On 02/04/2011 10:00 PM, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> for gcc-4.6, xz compression changes, and to a lesser extent we will be doing a
> mass rebuild starting monday. it will be done in a side tag with a lower than
> normal priority so that you can still submit builds and not have to wait for
>
On 10/01/2010 03:49 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Takanori MATSUURA wrote:
>> For modules/libimg/png, mozilla products use aPNG which was rejected
>> by upstream.
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/APNG
>>
>> So we have to use internal png.
>
> But this is against our packaging guidelines.
>
> There are o
On 09/30/2010 05:19 AM, Sven Lankes wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 06:37:33PM +0900, Takanori MATSUURA wrote:
>
>> If someone implement
>> --enable-system-libvpx
>> --enable-system-vorbis
>> --enable-system-ogg
>> --enable-system-theora
>> into the mozilla source, we can easily remove source for
On 09/12/2010 08:39 PM, Elio Maldonado wrote:
>On 09/12/2010 12:50 AM, Bojan Smojver wrote:
>> How did this slip through the cracks? Isn't that a security related
>> update?
>>
> No, it didn't slip trough the cracks. Some problems with the nss 3.12.7
> update on which it depends have held up th
On 08/25/2010 03:13 PM, Ben Boeckel wrote:
> Christopher Aillon wrote:
>> I missed the first notice of this go by, but I use zsh so can play with
>> it in the next few days. Can you post the updates so I don't hit the
>> same bugs you did?
>
> Sure. Attache
On 08/24/2010 07:31 PM, Ben Boeckel wrote:
> Jesse Keating wrote:
>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> On 7/30/10 9:34 PM, Ben Boeckel wrote:
>>> I'd like to get some wider testing on it than what I subjected it to.
>>> Constructive criticism welcome.
>>>
>>
>> Did you ever ge
On 07/28/2010 12:49 AM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> Non upstreamed patches are not a option for
> Firefox for trademark reasons as well.
Non upstreamed patches are not an option because it's a pain in the to
have to update patches every few weeks for a new FF release. We either
can do patches or t
On 04/29/2010 12:29 PM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> Christopher Aillon (cail...@redhat.com) said:
>> This option doesn't exist because it's impossible to use right now.
>> Just adding a --with-libffi doesn't actually make it useful since the
>> minimum required ve
On 04/27/2010 02:58 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> (In addition, Thunderbird bundles xulrunner, but there's no fix available
> for that issue at this time.)
I'm not sure why I'm bothering responding if you're not going to even
read responses, such as:
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/201
On 04/27/2010 02:58 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> * libffi is bundled because there's no option to use the system version,
This option doesn't exist because it's impossible to use right now.
Just adding a --with-libffi doesn't actually make it useful since the
minimum required version of libffi hasn
On 04/27/2010 02:55 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> I think that, sure, we should try to get patches upstreamed, but I don't see
> why we'd need to wait for their approval before applying them, other than
> due to the aforementioned trademark bureaucracy.
You really don't see the value in having the eng
On 04/26/2010 03:52 PM, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> And they should do things the right way as well. If they are bundling
> libraries, they should stop doing that.
Mozilla has to bundle to ship on Windows, Mac, even their builds for
Linux where they don't control what versions of libraries are prese
On 04/23/2010 12:03 AM, Martin Stransky wrote:
> Hi,
>
> we're patching mozilla packages only for really critical issues because
> of mozilla trademarks. We can't put any patch we want to the mozilla
> package and ship it as 'Firefox' or 'Thunderbird'.
To clarify a little further...
The main purp
44 matches
Mail list logo
