Re: rawhide report: 20140404 changes

2014-04-08 Thread Mat Booth
On 4 April 2014 17:59, Fedora Rawhide Report wrote: > > Broken deps for i386 > -- > [solr3] > solr3-3.6.2-5.fc21.noarch requires > mvn(org.apache.lucene:lucene-stempel) > solr3-3.6.2-5.fc21.noarch requires > mvn(org.apache.luc

Re: rawhide report: 20140404 changes

2014-04-08 Thread Marcin Juszkiewicz
W dniu 04.04.2014 19:43, Mikolaj Izdebski pisze: > On 04/04/2014 07:14 PM, Matthew Miller wrote: >> [snip] >> >> Is it useful for these messages to go to the devel (or test, for that >> matter) lists? They seem mostly to just raise the noise. > > It is definitely useful, but I wish there was some

Re: rawhide report: 20140404 changes

2014-04-07 Thread Jens Petersen
> It is definitely useful, but I wish there was some way of excluding > long-standing problems that no one cares to fix. It might be nice if there was a counter for how many weeks they have been broken, though probably a bit harder to implement. Jens -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproje

Re: rawhide report: 20140404 changes

2014-04-06 Thread Orion Poplawski
On 04/06/2014 03:11 AM, Christopher Meng wrote: > [totpcgi] > totpcgi-selinux-0.5.5-1.fc21.noarch requires > file:///usr/share/doc/selinux-policy/html/index.html > > If I understand correctly such packages which need extra selinux policy, > shouldn't they depend on a more vital dep instead

Re: rawhide report: 20140404 changes

2014-04-06 Thread Christopher Meng
[totpcgi] totpcgi-selinux-0.5.5-1.fc21.noarch requires file:///usr/share/doc/selinux-policy/html/index.html If I understand correctly such packages which need extra selinux policy, shouldn't they depend on a more vital dep instead of this? -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.o

Re: rawhide report: 20140404 changes

2014-04-05 Thread Kevin Fenzi
On Sat, 05 Apr 2014 09:08:57 -0600 Orion Poplawski wrote: > Like wise. The one change that might be nice would be to try would be > to consolidate the broken deps a bit - just a single note that a > package has broken dep in all arches (and listing those deps) rather > than repeating three times

Re: rawhide report: 20140404 changes

2014-04-05 Thread Orion Poplawski
On 04/04/2014 01:17 PM, Al Dunsmuir wrote: > On Friday, April 4, 2014, 1:42:49 PM, Matthew Milleru wrote: >> On Fri, Apr 04, 2014 at 11:32:57AM -0600, Michal Jaegermann wrote: >>> As far as I am concerned they are very useful. In more detail I am >>> looking mostly at "Broken deps" and "Summaries",

Re: rawhide report: 20140404 changes

2014-04-05 Thread David Tardon
Hi, On Fri, Apr 04, 2014 at 01:42:49PM -0400, Matthew Miller wrote: > On Fri, Apr 04, 2014 at 11:32:57AM -0600, Michal Jaegermann wrote: > > As far as I am concerned they are very useful. In more detail I am > > looking mostly at "Broken deps" and "Summaries", with only an occasional > > peek at a

Re: rawhide report: 20140404 changes

2014-04-04 Thread Richard W.M. Jones
On Fri, Apr 04, 2014 at 01:14:30PM -0400, Matthew Miller wrote: > [snip] > > Is it useful for these messages to go to the devel (or test, for that > matter) lists? They seem mostly to just raise the noise. To add to what others have said, I also find this a useful message. Rich. -- Richard Jon

Re: rawhide report: 20140404 changes

2014-04-04 Thread Al Dunsmuir
On Friday, April 4, 2014, 1:42:49 PM, Matthew Milleru wrote: > On Fri, Apr 04, 2014 at 11:32:57AM -0600, Michal Jaegermann wrote: >> As far as I am concerned they are very useful. In more detail I am >> looking mostly at "Broken deps" and "Summaries", with only an occasional >> peek at a changelog

Re: rawhide report: 20140404 changes

2014-04-04 Thread Mikolaj Izdebski
On 04/04/2014 07:14 PM, Matthew Miller wrote: > [snip] > > Is it useful for these messages to go to the devel (or test, for that > matter) lists? They seem mostly to just raise the noise. It is definitely useful, but I wish there was some way of excluding long-standing problems that no one cares

Re: rawhide report: 20140404 changes

2014-04-04 Thread Matthew Miller
On Fri, Apr 04, 2014 at 11:32:57AM -0600, Michal Jaegermann wrote: > As far as I am concerned they are very useful. In more detail I am > looking mostly at "Broken deps" and "Summaries", with only an occasional > peek at a changelog information, but on a number of occasions these > messages were cr

Re: rawhide report: 20140404 changes

2014-04-04 Thread Matthew Miller
On Fri, Apr 04, 2014 at 07:39:18PM +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote: > I'm definitely going through this email every day. Not just to see what > is broken but what is new as well. Okay, carry on then. Just checking! -- Matthew Miller-- Fedora Project-- "Te

Re: rawhide report: 20140404 changes

2014-04-04 Thread Vít Ondruch
Dne 4.4.2014 19:14, Matthew Miller napsal(a): > [snip] > > Is it useful for these messages to go to the devel (or test, for that > matter) lists? They seem mostly to just raise the noise. > > > I'm definitely going through this email every day. Not just to see what is broken but what is new as wel

Re: rawhide report: 20140404 changes

2014-04-04 Thread Dennis Gilmore
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Fri, 4 Apr 2014 13:14:30 -0400 Matthew Miller wrote: > [snip] > > Is it useful for these messages to go to the devel (or test, for that > matter) lists? They seem mostly to just raise the noise. > > > it is very useful to see what is changed

Re: rawhide report: 20140404 changes

2014-04-04 Thread Matthew Miller
[snip] Is it useful for these messages to go to the devel (or test, for that matter) lists? They seem mostly to just raise the noise. -- Matthew Miller-- Fedora Project-- "Tepid change for the somewhat better!" -- devel mailing list devel@lists.