On 02/07/2010 03:15 AM, Karel Klic wrote:
> Kevin Kofler wrote:
>> Stefan Schulze Frielinghaus wrote:
>>> However, in the meantime I stopped reporting crashes via ABRT because I
>>> think it raises the load for a package maintainer to high while the
>>> report should go directly to upstream. Bother
On So, 2010-02-07 at 09:03 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On 02/07/2010 03:15 AM, Karel Klic wrote:
> > Kevin Kofler wrote:
> >> Stefan Schulze Frielinghaus wrote:
> >>> However, in the meantime I stopped reporting crashes via ABRT because I
> >>> think it raises the load for a package maintainer t
On Sun, 07 Feb 2010 11:20:04 +0100, Stefan wrote:
> On So, 2010-02-07 at 09:03 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> >
> > To end-users, it's irrelevant "who is supposed to fix something". Their
> > complaints are against the product call Fedora and thus expect "Fedora
> > to fix their product".
> >
Compose started at Sun Feb 7 08:15:10 UTC 2010
Broken deps for i386
--
PySolFC-cardsets-1.1-5.2.noarch requires PySolFC = 0:1.1
PySolFC-music-4.40-5.noarch requires PySolFC = 0:1.1
blahtexml-0.6-5.fc12.i686 requires l
I don't want to answer all of the messages, so I'll try to sum all of it
in this one...
On 02/05/2010 09:46 PM, Christoph Wickert wrote:
What's wrong with ABRT? ALl the backtraces I get are unusable again. If
Thunar crashes, not even Thunar-debuginfo gets installed.
abrt 1.0 worked here, then
On So, 2010-02-07 at 12:52 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
[...]
> There is an analogy actually. Regardless of whether the Fedora Project
> consists of many volunteers, who do unpaid stuff in their spare time,
> Fedora delivers a product and will have to deal with its consumers and
> negative feedba
On Sun, 07 Feb 2010 14:23:13 +0100, Stefan wrote:
> The question was if the package maintainer should
> be triggered first instead of upstream which increases the load for the
> package maintainer who might not be able to handle all of these requests
> in the end because it is not his/her full tim
On So, 2010-02-07 at 15:34 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Sun, 07 Feb 2010 14:23:13 +0100, Stefan wrote:
>
> > The question was if the package maintainer should
> > be triggered first instead of upstream which increases the load for the
> > package maintainer who might not be able to handle a
Michael Schwendt wrote:
> Secondly, the package maintainer should be informed about what is broken
> with the chosen/packaged software release. Certainly you don't ask for
> upstream to filter out *all* reports from all distributions, to return
> distribution-specific ones into a dist's own bug tra
Michael Schwendt wrote:
> As a last resort, software could get retired and removed from "The
> Product".
I'm not sure not shipping something at all is better for the user than
shipping it with bugs, even if they never get fixed. Often even a buggy
software is better than nothing.
Kevin
Karel Klic wrote:
> Christoph Wickert wrote:
>> For me as the maintainer it is a lot of work to reply to all these
>> useless reports and for our users it's just frustrating if all their
>> reports get closed INSUFFICIENT_DATA.
>
> I am now going to write a script which detects all the backtraces
>
On Sat, Feb 06, 2010 at 12:24:08AM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Paul Howarth wrote:
> > Wouldn't this problem be avoided if the SRPM was built in a buildroot
> > containing all of the buildreqs (like the binary RPMs are)?
> >
> > It would be an extra step in the build process, but not a big extra
On Fri, Feb 05, 2010 at 08:29:00PM +0100, Till Maas wrote:
> Hiyas,
>
> is there a simple build system for personal repos available? E.g. give
> it an srpm and then it will build it for several mock configs, ask to
> sign the rpms, move them to typical repositories and ask to sign the
> repository
Is KoPeR ever going to become available? Or is it an idea that is DOA?
On Sun, Feb 7, 2010 at 4:29 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 05, 2010 at 08:29:00PM +0100, Till Maas wrote:
> > Hiyas,
> >
> > is there a simple build system for personal repos available? E.g. give
> > it an srpm an
Mach may be a solution as well. See:
http://thomas.apestaart.org/projects/mach/
On 02/07/2010 10:29 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 05, 2010 at 08:29:00PM +0100, Till Maas wrote:
>
>> Hiyas,
>>
>> is there a simple build system for personal repos available? E.g. give
>> it an srp
Am Sonntag, den 07.02.2010, 22:26 +0100 schrieb Karel Klic:
> The script to find backtraces without debuginfo has been written[1].
Thanks a lot for your work and for your latest mail as well!
> I
> placed the list of found bugs to the Fedora wiki [2]. IMHO only bugs
> with 2 comments should b
On 02/07/2010 12:52 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Sun, 07 Feb 2010 11:20:04 +0100, Stefan wrote:
>
>> On So, 2010-02-07 at 09:03 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>>>
>>> To end-users, it's irrelevant "who is supposed to fix something". Their
>>> complaints are against the product call Fedora and thu
On 02/07/2010 07:46 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Michael Schwendt wrote:
>> Secondly, the package maintainer should be informed about what is broken
>> with the chosen/packaged software release. Certainly you don't ask for
>> upstream to filter out *all* reports from all distributions, to return
>> di
Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> You might want to look at smock, which is the tool (wrapper around
> 'mock') that we initially used to build the mingw tree. One nice
> feature is that it sorts out dependencies and can build for multiple
> Fedora distros and architectures in one go.
But the way it "so
19 matches
Mail list logo
