darrell pfeifer wrote:
> Fails for me too, with the same error.
Thanks for confirming that.
I don't mean to be rude or inflammatory, but do have to wonder how such
a fundamentally-broken package was released -- even to rawhide. In the
fedora openssh release process, isn't there some sort of sani
On 11/09/11 09:33, Jim Meyering wrote:
> darrell pfeifer wrote:
>> Fails for me too, with the same error.
>
> Thanks for confirming that.
>
> I don't mean to be rude or inflammatory, but do have to wonder how such
> a fundamentally-broken package was released -- even to rawhide. In the
> fedora op
On 09/11/2011 02:13 PM, Frank Murphy wrote:
> Is not rawhide "the sanity check", even if used productively by many?
Not many and I think the branch being less fragile would certainly
help. If I know my system will still boot and I can access the network
and my browser is enough for me to conside
Hi,
2011/7/2 Tom Lane :
> =?ISO-8859-2?Q?Micha=B3_Piotrowski?= writes:
>> Are there any plans to provide PostgreSQL 9.1 in Fedora 16? PostgreSQL
>> 9.1 is in beta2 now and it's scheduled for Q3 2011.
>
> If upstream releases it in time, it'll be in F16. I would put the odds
> of that no better t
Frank Murphy wrote:
> On 11/09/11 09:33, Jim Meyering wrote:
>> darrell pfeifer wrote:
>>> Fails for me too, with the same error.
>>
>> Thanks for confirming that.
>>
>> I don't mean to be rude or inflammatory, but do have to wonder how such
>> a fundamentally-broken package was released -- even to
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> On 09/11/2011 02:13 PM, Frank Murphy wrote:
>> Is not rawhide "the sanity check", even if used productively by many?
>
> Not many and I think the branch being less fragile would certainly
> help. If I know my system will still boot and I can access the network
> and my brow
Hi Ondrej,
On Fri, 9 Sep 2011 12:54:21 + (UTC)
Ondrej Vasik wrote:
> commit b5f92004485e03004e5830205af0d1873f84f482
> Author: Ondřej Vašík
> Date: Fri Sep 9 13:16:47 2011 +0200
>
> new upstream release 8.13, drop libs subpackage, temporarily
> disable multibyte checks in misc/cut t
Compose started at Sun Sep 11 08:15:22 UTC 2011
Broken deps for x86_64
--
FlightGear-2.0.0-6.fc16.x86_64 requires libosg.so.74()(64bit)
FlightGear-2.0.0-6.fc16.x86_64 requires libosgText.so.74()(64bit)
FlightGear-2.0.0
2011/9/10 Jim Meyering :
> Thanks for the example, but I don't see how that option name is
> misleading. A "file system" is the thing you create with "mkfs".
> Even though normally there is only one mount point per file system,
> the fact that with bind mounts there can be many doesn't change
> th
Compose started at Sun Sep 11 08:15:02 UTC 2011
Broken deps for x86_64
--
389-admin-1.1.23-1.fc17.i686 requires libicuuc.so.46
389-admin-1.1.23-1.fc17.i686 requires libicui18n.so.46
389-admin-1.1.23-1.fc17.i686 require
On Sun, Sep 11, 2011 at 09:43:27 +0100,
Frank Murphy wrote:
> On 11/09/11 09:33, Jim Meyering wrote:
> > darrell pfeifer wrote:
> >> Fails for me too, with the same error.
> >
> > Thanks for confirming that.
> >
> > I don't mean to be rude or inflammatory, but do have to wonder how such
> > a fu
On Sun, Sep 11, 2011 at 11:13:03 +0200,
Michał Piotrowski wrote:
> Hi,
>
> 2011/7/2 Tom Lane :
> > =?ISO-8859-2?Q?Micha=B3_Piotrowski?= writes:
> >> Are there any plans to provide PostgreSQL 9.1 in Fedora 16? PostgreSQL
> >> 9.1 is in beta2 now and it's scheduled for Q3 2011.
> >
> > If upstre
On 09/11/2011 04:33 AM, Jim Meyering wrote:
> darrell pfeifer wrote:
>> Fails for me too, with the same error.
>
> Thanks for confirming that.
>
> I don't mean to be rude or inflammatory, but do have to wonder how such
> a fundamentally-broken package was released -- even to rawhide. In the
> fedo
Bruno Wolff III writes:
> On Sun, Sep 11, 2011 at 11:13:03 +0200,
> MichaÅ Piotrowski wrote:
>> F16 beta is targeted at 2011-09-27, so there is still a little time to
>> upgrade PostgreSQL for this release.
> The beta freeze starts two weeks before that and even if it gets in the next
> coupl
On Sun, Sep 11, 2011 at 11:27:53 -0400,
Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Yeah. I have done test packaging of 9.1rc1 already, so it's pretty much
> ready to go on my end. I would be prepared to push 9.1 into f16 on
> Monday if there were enough people willing to test and up-karma it
> before the freeze ...
On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 9:35 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-09-07 at 11:52 -0400, Nathaniel McCallum wrote:
>> "gcc -m32 -o foo foo.c" gives me:
>> /usr/include/gnu/stubs.h:7:27: fatal error: gnu/stubs-32.h: No such file
>> or directory
>>
>> If I copy the gnu/stubs-32.h file from the 32
Am 11.09.2011 18:18, schrieb drago01:
>>> Am I doing something wrong? Or is this a packaging bug? I can't think of
>>> any reason why I shouldn't be able to compile at least a basic C program
>>> with no deps as 32bit on 64bit.
>>
>> it's worth noting a 'cleaner' way to do this than messing up yo
On Sun, Sep 11, 2011 at 12:18:51PM +0200, Jim Meyering wrote:
> Frank Murphy wrote:
> > On 11/09/11 09:33, Jim Meyering wrote:
> >> darrell pfeifer wrote:
> >>> Fails for me too, with the same error.
> >>
> >> Thanks for confirming that.
> >>
> >> I don't mean to be rude or inflammatory, but do hav
On Sun, Sep 11, 2011 at 11:27 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Yeah. I have done test packaging of 9.1rc1 already, so it's pretty much
> ready to go on my end. I would be prepared to push 9.1 into f16 on
> Monday if there were enough people willing to test and up-karma it
> before the freeze ... any volunt
On Sun, Sep 11, 2011 at 6:21 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
>
> Am 11.09.2011 18:18, schrieb drago01:
Am I doing something wrong? Or is this a packaging bug? I can't think of
any reason why I shouldn't be able to compile at least a basic C program
with no deps as 32bit on 64bit.
>>>
>>>
On Thu 08 Sep 2011 01:22:04 PM CEST, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> On 09/08/2011 04:43 PM, Michel Alexandre Salim wrote:
>> Given that several changes are needed, it's probably best for one of
>> the Pino maintainers to make the update (I'd not feel comfortable
>> doing anything more than just adjusting
2011/9/11 Tom Lane :
> Bruno Wolff III writes:
>> On Sun, Sep 11, 2011 at 11:13:03 +0200,
>> Michał Piotrowski wrote:
>>> F16 beta is targeted at 2011-09-27, so there is still a little time to
>>> upgrade PostgreSQL for this release.
>
>> The beta freeze starts two weeks before that and even if
=?ISO-8859-2?Q?Micha=B3_Piotrowski?= writes:
> 2011/9/11 Tom Lane :
>> Yeah. I have done test packaging of 9.1rc1 already, so it's pretty much
>> ready to go on my end. I would be prepared to push 9.1 into f16 on
>> Monday if there were enough people willing to test and up-karma it
>> before the
On Sun, Sep 11, 2011 at 10:44:35AM -0400, Clyde E. Kunkel wrote:
> On 09/11/2011 04:33 AM, Jim Meyering wrote:
> > darrell pfeifer wrote:
> >> Fails for me too, with the same error.
> >
> > Thanks for confirming that.
> >
> > I don't mean to be rude or inflammatory, but do have to wonder how such
>
2011/9/11 Tom Lane :
> =?ISO-8859-2?Q?Micha=B3_Piotrowski?= writes:
>> 2011/9/11 Tom Lane :
>>> Yeah. I have done test packaging of 9.1rc1 already, so it's pretty much
>>> ready to go on my end. I would be prepared to push 9.1 into f16 on
>>> Monday if there were enough people willing to test an
Frank Murphy wrote:
> Is not rawhide "the sanity check",
Yes.
> even if used productively by many?
That's the problem then. Rawhide is explicitly labeled as NOT being intended
nor suitable for any sort of production use.
Kevin Kofler
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.or
Clyde E. Kunkel wrote:
> Maybe there needs to be a classification for rawhide similar to the
> karma system for updates-testing, but limited to just a set of packages
> that should just always work (maybe openssh would be one). For such
> packages, there should be a test validation set that the ma
Am Montag, den 12.09.2011, 00:19 +0200 schrieb Kevin Kofler:
> NO! Just no!
+1000
> This karma model doesn't even work well for releases, it'd be completely
> insane for Rawhide.
+1000
--
Stefan Held VI has only 2 Modes:
obi unixkiste orgThe first one is
On 09/11/2011 06:19 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Clyde E. Kunkel wrote:
>> Maybe there needs to be a classification for rawhide similar to the
>> karma system for updates-testing, but limited to just a set of packages
>> that should just always work (maybe openssh would be one). For such
>> packages,
Clyde E. Kunkel wrote:
> On 09/11/2011 04:33 AM, Jim Meyering wrote:
> > darrell pfeifer wrote:
> >> Fails for me too, with the same error.
> >
> > Thanks for confirming that.
> >
> > I don't mean to be rude or inflammatory, but do have to wonder how such
> > a fundamentally-broken package was rel
Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Frank Murphy wrote:
> > Is not rawhide "the sanity check",
>
> Yes.
>
> > even if used productively by many?
>
> That's the problem then. Rawhide is explicitly labeled as NOT being intended
> nor suitable for any sort of production use.
You _need_ people to use rawhide,
31 matches
Mail list logo
