On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 11:17:37AM +, Petr Pisar wrote:
> On 2014-05-20, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
> > On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 09:00:12AM +, Petr Pisar wrote:
> >> Why there is a limit on http:// and https:// URI schemata?
> >
> > I was pointed out by the person that made the changes to th
On 2014-05-20, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
> On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 09:00:12AM +, Petr Pisar wrote:
>> Why there is a limit on http:// and https:// URI schemata?
>
> I was pointed out by the person that made the changes to the script,
> it appears that there is no such limit, just a warning emi
On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 09:00:12AM +, Petr Pisar wrote:
> On 2014-05-16, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
> > * Finally, the form used in bugzilla to do SCM requests has been updated and
> > now asks for the `Upstream URL` to be specified next to the `Package Name`
> > and `Short Description`.
> >
>
On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 05:50:16AM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On 05/19/2014 11:50 AM, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
> >On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 09:00:12AM +, Petr Pisar wrote:
> >>On 2014-05-16, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
> >>>* Finally, the form used in bugzilla to do SCM requests has been upda
On 05/19/2014 11:50 AM, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 09:00:12AM +, Petr Pisar wrote:
On 2014-05-16, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
* Finally, the form used in bugzilla to do SCM requests has been updated and
now asks for the `Upstream URL` to be specified next to the `Packa
On 2014-05-19, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
> On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 09:00:12AM +, Petr Pisar wrote:
>> Why there is a limit on http:// and https:// URI schemata?
>
> Do we have projects that are hosted on a FTP w/o any kind of
> documentation? If so I guess we could add FTP, are you thinking a
On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 09:00:12AM +, Petr Pisar wrote:
> On 2014-05-16, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
> > * Finally, the form used in bugzilla to do SCM requests has been updated and
> > now asks for the `Upstream URL` to be specified next to the `Package Name`
> > and `Short Description`.
> >
>
On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 10:41:06AM +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote:
> Dne 19.5.2014 07:53, Pierre-Yves Chibon napsal(a):
> >On Sun, May 18, 2014 at 10:35:25PM +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote:
> >>I am curious about this as well. The URL should be taken from RPM and
> >>refreshed with every update of the package.
On 2014-05-16, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
> * Finally, the form used in bugzilla to do SCM requests has been updated and
> now asks for the `Upstream URL` to be specified next to the `Package Name`
> and `Short Description`.
>
Why there is a limit on http:// and https:// URI schemata?
-- Petr
--
Dne 19.5.2014 07:53, Pierre-Yves Chibon napsal(a):
On Sun, May 18, 2014 at 10:35:25PM +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote:
I am curious about this as well. The URL should be taken from RPM and
refreshed with every update of the package. The same applies for Summary and
Description.
Very simply, there is w
On Sun, May 18, 2014 at 10:35:25PM +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote:
> I am curious about this as well. The URL should be taken from RPM and
> refreshed with every update of the package. The same applies for Summary and
> Description.
Very simply, there is work in progress to write a cron script that will
On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 4:35 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
> I am curious about this as well. The URL should be taken from RPM and
> refreshed with every update of the package. The same applies for Summary and
> Description.
Agree, I'm also curious about that.
I can see many old pkgdb summaries contain
Dne 16.5.2014 19:06, Ralf Corsepius napsal(a):
On 05/16/2014 06:24 PM, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
Dear all,
* Finally, the form used in bugzilla to do SCM requests has been
updated and
now asks for the `Upstream URL`
Why? What is this supposed to be useful for?
AFAIS,
- this pkgdb-URL is
On 05/16/2014 06:24 PM, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
Dear all,
* Finally, the form used in bugzilla to do SCM requests has been updated and
now asks for the `Upstream URL`
Why? What is this supposed to be useful for?
AFAIS,
- this pkgdb-URL is redundant to the contents of the RPM
=> This pkgd
Dear all,
Here is some information regarding the consequences of deploying pkgdb2:
* The first and most annoying one is that PkgDB2 having a new API, it needs
a new packagedb-cli [1] which is necessary to have `fedpkg retire` working.
There is already a bug opened for it [2] but the solution is s
15 matches
Mail list logo