On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 11:50 PM, Ville Skyttä wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 12:40 PM, Richard Hughes
> wrote:
> > On 5 February 2014 10:20, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
> >> Wouldn't it be better to mass-file bugs?
>
> I do keep track of the affected packages and may end up doing that,
>
https://bu
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 02/01/2014 03:23 AM, Ville Skyttä wrote:
> A number of packages install files to /etc/rpm in Rawhide; the
> proper place for macros.* is /usr/lib/rpm/macros.d for rpm >= 4.11.
> And no matter what the location, these files should not be marked
> as
On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 12:40 PM, Richard Hughes wrote:
> On 5 February 2014 10:20, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
>> Wouldn't it be better to mass-file bugs?
I do keep track of the affected packages and may end up doing that,
depending on what happens in a week or two since I posted the initial
message.
Miroslav Suchý writes:
> On 02/05/2014 11:40 AM, Richard Hughes wrote:
>> For stuff like this, I think just getting a provenpackager to fix up
>> the packages is the best thing to do. It's obviously correct and a
>> simple change.
>
> Usually yes. But e.g. in rhn-client-tools this path is used in
On 02/05/2014 11:40 AM, Richard Hughes wrote:
For stuff like this, I think just getting a provenpackager to fix up
the packages is the best thing to do. It's obviously correct and a
simple change.
Usually yes. But e.g. in rhn-client-tools this path is used in code and the
change is non-trivial
On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 11:40 AM, Richard Hughes wrote:
> On 5 February 2014 10:20, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
> > Wouldn't it be better to mass-file bugs?
>
> For stuff like this, I think just getting a provenpackager to fix up
> the packages is the best thing to do. It's obviously correct and a
> si
On Wed, Feb 05, 2014 at 10:40:20AM +, Richard Hughes wrote:
> On 5 February 2014 10:20, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
> > Wouldn't it be better to mass-file bugs?
>
> For stuff like this, I think just getting a provenpackager to fix up
> the packages is the best thing to do. It's obviously correct an
On Wed, Feb 05, 2014 at 11:20:15AM +0100, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
> Wouldn't it be better to mass-file bugs?
There is a rough Guideline about mass bug filing:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mass_bug_filing
If not all packages are fixed after a while, the bugs can still be
filed. However it is also
On 01/31/2014 09:23 PM, Ville Skyttä wrote:
msuchy rhn-client-tools mzazrive
Filed upstream bug:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1061013
--
Miroslav Suchy, RHCE, RHCDS
Red Hat, Senior Software Engineer, #brno, #devexp, #fedora-buildsys
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraprojec
On 5 February 2014 10:20, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
> Wouldn't it be better to mass-file bugs?
For stuff like this, I think just getting a provenpackager to fix up
the packages is the best thing to do. It's obviously correct and a
simple change.
Richard.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproj
Hello,
On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 9:23 PM, Ville Skyttä wrote:
> List of affected packages follows (maintainer package comaintainers):
>
Wouldn't it be better to mass-file bugs? Yes, it's more work initially,
but the work would have a larger impact (the bug would keep being tracked,
unlike an e-ma
- Original Message -
> bkabrda python3 amcnabb,bkabrda,mstuchli,tomspur
Fixed in python3-3.3.2-9.fc21
> bkabrda python bkabrda,dmalcolm,ivazquez,jsteffan,mstuchli,tomspur,tradej
Fixed in python-2.7.6-2.fc21
--
Regards,
Bohuslav "Slavek" Kabrda.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedora
On Fri, 31 Jan 2014 22:23:51 +0200
Ville Skyttä wrote:
> Specfiles not targeting EL < 7 can simply replace %{_sysconfdir}/rpm
> with %{_rpmconfigdir}/macros.d and ones that wish to stay compatible
> with EL5 and 6 can do something like this to find the proper dir:
>
> %global macrosdir %(d=%{_rpm
On 2014-01-31, Ville Skyttä wrote:
> A number of packages install files to /etc/rpm in Rawhide; the proper
> place for macros.* is /usr/lib/rpm/macros.d for rpm >= 4.11. And no
> matter what the location, these files should not be marked as %config.
>
[...]
>
> jplesnik perl
> corsepiu,cweyl,iarn
Ville Skyttä writes:
> sochotni javapackages-tools java-sig,mizdebsk,msimacek,msrb
Fixed in upstream git, will be in next release
--
Stanislav Ochotnicky
Software Engineer - Developer Experience
PGP: 7B087241
Red Hat Inc. http://cz.redhat.com
pgpf3tZnV3NGT.pgp
On 31/01/14 21:23, Ville Skyttä wrote:
phracek emacs jgu,phracek
Fixed
--
Best regards / S pozdravem
Petr Hracek
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
On 01/31/2014 09:23 PM, Ville Skyttä wrote:
twaugh cups jpopelka
Fixed.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Dne 31.1.2014 21:23, Ville Skyttä napsal(a):
> A number of packages install files to /etc/rpm in Rawhide; the proper
> place for macros.* is /usr/lib/rpm/macros.d for rpm >= 4.11. And no
> matter what the location, these files should not be marked as %config.
>
> Specfiles not targeting EL < 7 can
On 31 January 2014 20:23, Ville Skyttä wrote:
> kwizart color-filesystem rhughes
Fixed, thanks.
Richard
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
On 31.01.2014 21:23, Ville Skyttä wrote:
smani keyrings-filesystem (none)
Fixed.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
20 matches
Mail list logo
