Christopher Meng wrote on 2013-06-03:
> SCM will be ready in a few hours, don't hurry.
>
> BTW a note, I hope you can change some items in the SCM comment.
>
> Description of yours: "package for OpenAttestation project"
>
> However I think it should be "Attestation Service & Host Agent based
> o
How long will it usually take to get the approval for a New Package SCM
Request? And is it true that the package SCM requests will only be touched
in working days?
I just got a new package[1] pass review in last Friday afternoon US time but
the SCM request has not been handled by far. Just curious
Josh Boyer wrote on 2013-02-01:
> On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 12:40 AM, Wei, Gang wrote:
>> Bill Nottingham wrote on 2013-01-29:
>>> Jaroslav Reznik (jrez...@redhat.com) said:
>>>> = Features/OpenAttestation =
>>>> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features
Bill Nottingham wrote on 2013-01-29:
> Jaroslav Reznik (jrez...@redhat.com) said:
>> = Features/OpenAttestation =
>> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/OpenAttestation
>>
>> Feature owner(s): Gang Wei
>>
>> Provide fedora packages for OpenAttestation to support Trusted Compute
>> Pools(TCP) f
Bruno Wolff III wrote on 2012-01-14:
> On Sat, Jan 14, 2012 at 03:54:08 +,
> "Wei, Gang" wrote:
>> If I pick up tboot package successfully asap, will it still be
>> possible to be kept
> in F-17?
>
> Another message had the date the packages needed
If I pick up tboot package successfully asap, will it still be possible to be
kept in F-17?
> > Each release, before branching, we block currently orphaned packages.
> > It's that time again for Fedora 17.
> >
> > New this go-round is that we are also blocking packages that have
> > failed to bui
> Each release, before branching, we block currently orphaned packages.
> It's that time again for Fedora 17.
>
> New this go-round is that we are also blocking packages that have
> failed to build since before Fedora 15.
>
> The following packages are currently orphaned, or fail to build. If
> y
Eric Paris wrote on 2011-06-23:
> On 06/22/2011 03:20 PM, seth vidal wrote:
>> On Wed, 2011-06-22 at 20:02 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>>
>> Are we going to continue the double grub entries? while I realize
>> that tboot SHOULD allow non TXT hw to boot properly I also realize
>> that any differe
