On 12/11/2010 02:55 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> drago01 wrote:
>> Well ABRT should stop filing bugs in bugzilla, it does not scale PERIOD.
>
> IMHO it should file bugs in the upstream bug tracker (even if that tracker
> is not Bugzilla, so it'd have to learn as many different bug tracker APIs as
> po
Compose started at Sat Dec 11 08:15:05 UTC 2010
Broken deps for x86_64
--
beagle-0.3.9-19.fc14.x86_64 requires libmono.so.0()(64bit)
beagle-0.3.9-19.fc14.x86_64 requires libmono.so.0(VER_1)(64bit)
cpm-0.23-0.3.beta.fc1
On 12/11/2010 02:05 AM, Dave Jones wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 10:51:39AM +0100, Jiri Moskovcak wrote:
>
> > > The problem is entirely cosmetic. No data is harmed, the program exits
> > > after that, it's just a child thread and the main process don't
> > > communicate the exit qui
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> Socket activation is not mandatory or even a benefit in all cases. Just
> because we have a patch doesn't mean it is the right one. Upstream might
> have the foresight and the knowledge to see problems with patches we might
> not. There might be security implications. It
On 12/11/2010 06:45 AM, Jiri Moskovcak wrote:
>
> If ABRT can tell that the backtrace is same as something previously
> reported then there is no big harm, as it would only add the reporter to
> CC and won't be generating much noise..
> The problem here is that some maintainers doesn't want ABR
On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 8:11 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> > Socket activation is not mandatory or even a benefit in all cases. Just
> > because we have a patch doesn't mean it is the right one. Upstream might
> > have the foresight and the knowledge to see problems with pat
On 12/11/2010 03:55 PM, Genes MailLists wrote:
> On 12/11/2010 06:45 AM, Jiri Moskovcak wrote:
>
>>
>> If ABRT can tell that the backtrace is same as something previously
>> reported then there is no big harm, as it would only add the reporter to
>> CC and won't be generating much noise..
>> The pr
On 12/11/2010 02:15 PM, Jiri Moskovcak wrote:
will/not operate.
>>
>
> ABRT already has a blacklist configurable in it's config file, but it's
> controlled by ABRT maintainers... the problem or the request here is to
> have a directory like /etc/abrt.d/ where other maintainers can drop a
> con
On Sat, 2010-12-11 at 00:01 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Software just cannot grasp these things. Or do you volunteer for writing an
> NLP processing system for Bodhi, and training all our testers to deal with
> its limitations? Why can't we just let a human be the one to decide when to
> hit t
On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 12:45:10PM +0100, Jiri Moskovcak wrote:
> The problem here is that some maintainers doesn't want ABRT reports at
> all even those not yet reported...
It's arguable that such people are 'maintainers' at all if this is the case.
I find it quite sad that we have packagers
09.12.2010 17:46, Tom Callaway wrote:
Here are the latest set of changes to the Fedora Packaging Guidelines:
---
---
Some clarification has been added to the sections dealing with bundled
libraries, specifically that:
In this RPM packaging context, the definition of the term 'library'
includes:
Dave Jones wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 12:45:10PM +0100, Jiri Moskovcak wrote:
>
> > The problem here is that some maintainers doesn't want ABRT reports at
> > all even those not yet reported...
>
> It's arguable that such people are 'maintainers' at all if this is the
> case. I find it
Anyone have a review they would like to swap?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=662349
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 02:11:27AM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Dave Jones wrote:
>
> > On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 12:45:10PM +0100, Jiri Moskovcak wrote:
> >
> > > The problem here is that some maintainers doesn't want ABRT reports at
> > > all even those not yet reported...
> >
> > It'
14 matches
Mail list logo
