On Wed, 2010-09-15 at 17:06 +0100, Robert Spanton wrote:
> I've recently had to link a fair amount of my work statically so that
> it'll run on a cluster of RHEL machines. Unfortunately, I am just a
> user of these machines, and so I don't have the power to get them to run
> Fedora or even to get
On Wed, 15 Sep 2010, Jon Masters wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-09-14 at 21:26 -0400, Máirín Duffy wrote:
> > On Tue, 2010-09-14 at 19:02 -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> > > I'm happy to look for ways to make the other fesco voices heard.
> > > Any ideas? I could try making the tickets have some more descripti
> I've not come across this (mainly as I've not been that active due to a
> mix of work problems and hardware problems which meant a big
> re-install). Most of mono is built, but I've just hit this error
>
> *** ERROR: No build ID note found
> in
> /home/paul/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/mono-2.8-1.fc15.i3
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 12:36:40PM -0500, Mike McGrath wrote:
> Gregdek mentioned voter fatigue on FAB a while back. I know exactly what
> he's talking about though I'm not quite sure how to fix it. I suppose
> meeting fatigue isn't much different.
http://www.public-software-group.org/liquid_fe
On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 17:44:47 +0200 Morten P.D. Stevens wrote:
> Does anyone know something about this issue?
>[...]
> ===
> [ INFO: suspicious rcu_dereference_check() usage. ]
> ---
> kernel/sched.c:616
Thorsten Leemhuis said the following on 09/15/2010 12:09 AM Pacific Time:
> Toshio Kuratomi wrote on 15.09.2010 04:54:
>> On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 07:02:33PM -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
>>> On Tue, 14 Sep 2010 20:48:13 -0400
>>> Máirín Duffy wrote:
Only 5 of the 9 FESCo members voted on this iss
2010/9/15 Michal Schmidt :
> On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 17:44:47 +0200 Morten P.D. Stevens wrote:
>> Does anyone know something about this issue?
>>[...]
>> ===
>> [ INFO: suspicious rcu_dereference_check() usage. ]
>> ---
Matthew Miller said the following on 09/15/2010 07:57 AM Pacific Time:
> On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 03:37:55PM +0100, Adam Williamson wrote:
>> I'm a bit confused. You spend the rest of the mail talking about when
>> the feature freeze is for F15, but I'm not sure why. As long as F15 is
>> open and it
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=625363
--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System
2010-09-15 14:28:26 EDT ---
perl-Directory-Queue-1.0-1.el4 has been pushed to the Fed
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=625363
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=625363
--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System
2010-09-15 14:29:26 EDT ---
perl-Directory-Queue-1.0-1.el5 has been pushed to the Fed
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=625363
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 19:59, Sven Lankes wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 12:36:40PM -0500, Mike McGrath wrote:
>
>> Gregdek mentioned voter fatigue on FAB a while back. I know exactly what
>> he's talking about though I'm not quite sure how to fix it. I suppose
>> meeting fatigue isn't much d
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 11:28:46AM -0700, John Poelstra wrote:
> I don't recall any situation where someone submitted a feature at the
> deadline without having done anything and then scrambling for two weeks
> to finish by feature freeze.
I'm looking at the current situation. If we had hard, ea
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 05:06:20PM +0100, Robert Spanton wrote:
>
> So, would be acceptable to register requests for -static package
> variants as tickets on bugzilla? Or is there a better way to try to
> encourage people to generate these packages?
Providing static libraries for user needs like
Just a quick heads up that I'm going to be updating introspection to
(at least) 0.9.5 in rawhide.
For libraries, this is generally a simple rebuild with no impact on
primary functionality. However
if you are a library maintainer, do see
http://mail.gnome.org/archives/gnome-announce-list/2010-Sept
On Wednesday, September 15, 2010 10:41:26 am Paul F. Johnson wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've not come across this (mainly as I've not been that active due to a
> mix of work problems and hardware problems which meant a big
> re-install). Most of mono is built, but I've just hit this error
>
> *** ERROR: No
Toshio Kuratomi (a.bad...@gmail.com) said:
> Actually, iiuc, tomasz is talking about migrating sysv-init scripts to
> systemd unit files. There is a blocker to doing that in F15 which is that
> lennart, notting, and walters (that I remember) are against doing a mass
> migration to unit files unti
> -Original Message-
> From: devel-boun...@lists.fedoraproject.org [mailto:devel-
> boun...@lists.fedoraproject.org] On Behalf Of Michal Schmidt
> Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2010 8:03 PM
> To: devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Subject: Re: Problem with 2.6.35.4-12.fc14.x86_64
>
> On Wed,
2010/9/15 Morten P.D. Stevens :
>> -Original Message-
>> From: devel-boun...@lists.fedoraproject.org [mailto:devel-
>> boun...@lists.fedoraproject.org] On Behalf Of Michal Schmidt
>> Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2010 8:03 PM
>> To: devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
>> Subject: Re: Problem wit
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 08:11:47PM +0200, Michał Piotrowski wrote:
> One problem fixed, introduced another
>
> ===
> [ INFO: suspicious rcu_dereference_check() usage. ]
> ---
> include/linux/cgro
Le mercredi 15 septembre 2010 à 12:40 +0200, drago01 a écrit :
> On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 12:27 PM, M A Young wrote:
> > On Wed, 15 Sep 2010, drago01 wrote:
> > I agree. I was worried when systemd appeared in F14 just before the alpha.
> > Really we should have been much closer to where we are now
2010/9/15 Dave Jones :
> On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 08:11:47PM +0200, Michał Piotrowski wrote:
>
> > One problem fixed, introduced another
> >
> > ===
> > [ INFO: suspicious rcu_dereference_check() usage. ]
> > --
Le mardi 14 septembre 2010 à 21:26 -0400, Máirín Duffy a écrit :
> On Tue, 2010-09-14 at 19:02 -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> > I'm happy to look for ways to make the other fesco voices heard.
> > Any ideas? I could try making the tickets have some more descriptive
> > subject like "HEY VOTE ON THIS
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=630097
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=447549&action=edit
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=447566&action=edit
--
389-devel mailing list
389-de...@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/389-dev
Hi Dennis,
> Mono has had alot of issues building on x86_64 recently. it would be great
> if
> you worked with upstream to track down and resolve the 64 bit issues.
>From what I've seen, 2.8 fixes quite a lot of the issues with 64 bit
systems. Are there any specifics I should look at?
TTFN
P
Hi,
> > googling suggests that there has been a change and that I need to add
> > LDFLAGS += --build-id in the build and install parts. I've not had to do
> > this before, so am I missing something and if I include it, will it then
> > fail to build on koji?
>
> That is not usually the ideal solu
> I can email you over the throwback from the build (or the spec file with
> altered patches), but as it dies on on the missing build ID (even with
> the LDFLAGS thing added), there is no build.
The log might help. I meant, the source, so I can attempt the build.
Use git. It's your friend. Just
Nils Philippsen said the following on 09/15/2010 03:28 AM Pacific Time:
> On Tue, 2010-09-14 at 17:13 -0700, John Poelstra wrote:
>> Shouldn't ABRT be looking to a file like /etc/fedora-release to
>> determine the release version?
>
> r...@rawhide:~> cat /etc/fedora-release
> Fedora release 15 (Fi
On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 11:53:51 -0400 Brandon Lozza wrote:
> If I have to wait for the next release of Fedora (14 for example) to
> get KDE 4.5 then it's looking like the stable updates vision has made
> Fedora incompatible with what I need.
KDE 4.5 has not been released to updates because it has kno
> -Original Message-
> From: devel-boun...@lists.fedoraproject.org [mailto:devel-
> boun...@lists.fedoraproject.org] On Behalf Of Michal Schmidt
> Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2010 8:03 PM
> To: devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Subject: Re: Problem with 2.6.35.4-12.fc14.x86_64
>
> On Wed
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 11:11:52PM +0200, Morten P.D. Stevens wrote:
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: devel-boun...@lists.fedoraproject.org [mailto:devel-
> > boun...@lists.fedoraproject.org] On Behalf Of Michal Schmidt
> > Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2010 8:03 PM
> > To: devel@
On Wednesday, September 15, 2010 03:56:39 pm Paul F. Johnson wrote:
> Hi Dennis,
>
> > Mono has had alot of issues building on x86_64 recently. it would be
> > great if you worked with upstream to track down and resolve the 64 bit
> > issues.
> >
> >From what I've seen, 2.8 fixes quite a lot of t
On Wed, 2010-09-15 at 22:33 +0200, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> Le mardi 14 septembre 2010 à 21:26 -0400, Máirín Duffy a écrit :
> > On Tue, 2010-09-14 at 19:02 -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> > > I'm happy to look for ways to make the other fesco voices heard.
> > > Any ideas? I could try making the tick
Thank you to all the feature owners and developers for all their hard
work to make Fedora 14 the best Fedora release yet. We are almost to
the end!
As a follow-up to last week's reminder
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel-announce/2010-September/000676.html
ALL feature pages are no
As a reminder, we have reached the Beta Change Deadline for Fedora 14.
"At the change deadlines for Alpha and Beta, pushes to the branched
development repository (e.g. /pub/fedora/linux/development/14), are
suspended until the Release Candidate has been successfully tested and
staging has start
On Wed, 2010-09-15 at 18:09 -0400, Máirín Duffy wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-09-15 at 22:33 +0200, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> > I really don't see the point. A forced vote is not better than no vote
> > (can easily be worse). As far as I know in most countries actual laws
> > are passed by whoever is prese
On Wed, 2010-09-15 at 14:04 -0700, John Poelstra wrote:
> Nils Philippsen said the following on 09/15/2010 03:28 AM Pacific Time:
> > On Tue, 2010-09-14 at 17:13 -0700, John Poelstra wrote:
> >> Shouldn't ABRT be looking to a file like /etc/fedora-release to
> >> determine the release version?
> >
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 9:46 PM, Jon Masters wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-09-15 at 18:09 -0400, Máirín Duffy wrote:
>> That's a good point, but I would hope that someone elected to serve on a
>> body in Fedora would actually *want* to vote, and the measures above are
>> just ideas meant to be motivation/
On Wed, 2010-09-15 at 21:54 -0500, inode0 wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 9:46 PM, Jon Masters wrote:
> > btw, I think Kyle said earlier he's standing aside. So does that mean
> > there now is a new FESCo election?
>
> No, FESCo has policies in place to deal with this situation described here
>
101 - 140 of 140 matches
Mail list logo
