Till Maas wrote:
> If this is common knowledge, why does it still exist?
The usual answer: because some highly influential people are convinced of
its greatness and won't listen to reason. :-(
Kevin Kofler
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.
On Sat, Mar 20, 2010 at 07:38:43AM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Till Maas wrote:
> > These requirements render the karma automatism useless for all branches
> > except F13, because the fedora-packager package in F12 was iirc pushed
> > automatically after it received enough testing. If this implies
Till Maas wrote:
> These requirements render the karma automatism useless for all branches
> except F13, because the fedora-packager package in F12 was iirc pushed
> automatically after it received enough testing. If this implies, that
> that the package should also be pushed in F13, then this shou
Thomas Spura wrote:
> Why testing?
>
> A "maybe-broken update" is better than a "non-working programm" isn't
> it?
+1, broken dependency fixes should go stable ASAP.
Kevin Kofler
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Jesse Keating wrote:
> We do separate testing per release, because each release is different.
> Different library sets, different kernels, glibc, some different desktop
> environments, etc... Assuming that testing on one release means that
> it'll work on other releases is grossly irresponsible.
Till Maas wrote:
> It would be enough to only push the update that got enough testing and
> all updates in newer releases to keep the upgrade path.
Yes. Pushing stuff to older releases later does not break upgrade paths, it
just annoys and confuses folks. Pushing stuff to older releases first is
On Fri, 2010-03-19 at 13:34 -0500, Jeffrey Ollie wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 1:25 PM, Thomas Spura
> wrote:
> >
> > Why testing?
> >
> > A "maybe-broken update" is better than a "non-working programm" isn't
> > it?
>
> Because there are a significant number of people that will scream
> blood
On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 1:25 PM, Thomas Spura
wrote:
>
> Why testing?
>
> A "maybe-broken update" is better than a "non-working programm" isn't
> it?
Because there are a significant number of people that will scream
bloody murder if people push packages directly to stable without
having the packa
Am Donnerstag, den 18.03.2010, 23:30 +0530 schrieb Rakesh Pandit:
> On 18 March 2010 00:19, Branched Report wrote:
> > Compose started at Wed Mar 17 09:15:24 UTC 2010
> >
> >linphone-2.1.1-4.fc12.i686 requires libortp.so.7
>
> Thanks Quentin for looking into this and Jesse for importing. I
On 18 March 2010 00:19, Branched Report wrote:
> Compose started at Wed Mar 17 09:15:24 UTC 2010
>
> linphone-2.1.1-4.fc12.i686 requires libortp.so.7
Thanks Quentin for looking into this and Jesse for importing. I have
filled up bodhi update and requested for testing.
--
Rakesh Pandit
htt
On Thu, 2010-03-18 at 02:32 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> I wrote:
> > Both fedora-easy-karma and fedora-packager are breaking upgrade paths,
> > this inheritance problem is just another side effect of that. The packages
> > have to be pushed to stable either simultaneously or in decreasing release
On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 02:32:35AM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> I wrote:
> > Both fedora-easy-karma and fedora-packager are breaking upgrade paths,
> > this inheritance problem is just another side effect of that. The packages
> > have to be pushed to stable either simultaneously or in decreasing r
On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 01:36:59AM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Both fedora-easy-karma and fedora-packager are breaking upgrade paths, this
> inheritance problem is just another side effect of that. The packages have
> to be pushed to stable either simultaneously or in decreasing release order.
Chris Adams wrote:
> It shouldn't be based on the sum, as that would mean positives for one
> release could override negatives for another.
That's kinda the whole point. "Kinda" because of course negatives should not
be ignored, but that's always true, even if the positives are for the same
rele
Once upon a time, Kevin Kofler said:
> PS: The main cause for this kind of problems is people insisting on separate
> testing per release. IMHO updates should go out to all releases at the same
> time, based on the sum of the testing done for all of them, then we won't
> have such upgrade path
I wrote:
> Both fedora-easy-karma and fedora-packager are breaking upgrade paths,
> this inheritance problem is just another side effect of that. The packages
> have to be pushed to stable either simultaneously or in decreasing release
> order. Both the fedora-packager maintainer and you: please qu
Till Maas wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 06:49:41PM +, Branched Report wrote:
>
>> fedora-easy-karma-0-0.3.20100306git00fc20aa.fc12.noarch requires
>> fedora-packager >= 0:0.4.0
>
> This is unexpected behaviour of Fedora for me. Why is the package from
> F12 automatically added to the F13
>> hornsey-1.5.2-0.1.fc13.i686 requires libclutter-gst-0.10.so.0
This is a known issue and should be resolved shortly. Its part of
'Moblin' and well the whole state is in 'flux'. watch this (well
maybe not this one) space basically more will be known soon!
>> pyclutter-gst
On Wed, 2010-03-17 at 17:01 -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> Bruno Wolff III (br...@wolff.to) said:
> > > > fedora-easy-karma-0-0.3.20100306git00fc20aa.fc12.noarch
> > > > requires fedora-packager >= 0:0.4.0
> > >
> > > This is unexpected behaviour of Fedora for me. Why is the package fro
Bruno Wolff III (br...@wolff.to) said:
> > > fedora-easy-karma-0-0.3.20100306git00fc20aa.fc12.noarch requires
> > > fedora-packager >= 0:0.4.0
> >
> > This is unexpected behaviour of Fedora for me. Why is the package from
> > F12 automatically added to the F13 repo? The current situation is, t
On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 21:12:33 +0100,
Till Maas wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 06:49:41PM +, Branched Report wrote:
>
> > fedora-easy-karma-0-0.3.20100306git00fc20aa.fc12.noarch requires
> > fedora-packager >= 0:0.4.0
>
> This is unexpected behaviour of Fedora for me. Why is the p
On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 06:49:41PM +, Branched Report wrote:
> fedora-easy-karma-0-0.3.20100306git00fc20aa.fc12.noarch requires
> fedora-packager >= 0:0.4.0
This is unexpected behaviour of Fedora for me. Why is the package from
F12 automatically added to the F13 repo? The current situa
On Wed, 2010-03-17 at 18:49 +, Branched Report wrote:
> doodle-0.6.7-5.fc12.i686 requires libextractor.so.1
> easystroke-0.5.2-1.fc13.i686 requires
> libboost_serialization-mt.so.5
> fedora-easy-karma-0-0.3.20100306git00fc20aa.fc12.noarch
> requires fedora-packager >= 0:
Compose started at Wed Mar 17 09:15:24 UTC 2010
Broken deps for i386
--
doodle-0.6.7-5.fc12.i686 requires libextractor.so.1
easystroke-0.5.2-1.fc13.i686 requires libboost_serialization-mt.so.5
fedora-easy-karma-0-0.3.2
24 matches
Mail list logo
