On Sat, Jun 29, 2013 at 2:44 AM, Michael Catanzaro
wrote:
> There still seems to be an issue with the update descriptions that we
> present in PackageKit. A lot of people just write "update to version
> x.y.z" which is not great, but a whole lot better than some of the ones
> we've been seeing rec
Compose started at Sat Jun 29 08:15:02 UTC 2013
Broken deps for x86_64
--
[avgtime]
avgtime-0-0.6.git20130201.fc20.x86_64 requires
libphobos-ldc.so.60()(64bit)
[calligra]
calligra-author-2.6.4-2.fc20.x86_64 requires
libmarbl
On Sat, Jun 29, 2013 at 02:06:38 +0100,
Sérgio Basto wrote:
I like the idea of 19.1 pretty unofficially or untested, which fix some
issues on mac installs. Which is basically someone run pungi with new
boot installer stuff.
The Unity guys used to do QA'd (by them) respins of Fedora. In thos
On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 17:52:16 -0700,
Adam Williamson wrote:
I've suggested before that Bodhi should reject any update with an
empty description or with the placeholder text as the description.
That would be really helpful.
I think it does now. I forgot to add a note when rushing one of
On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 07:44:22PM -0500, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
> We need written policy on update descriptions, since despite the last
> discussion on this list [1], poor update descriptions continue to
> blemish the otherwise-professional image of the distro. A starting point
> suggestion: "E
Hi,
Did anyone notice all the i686 packages that get pulled in if you try to
upgrade from F18? My system has no i686 packages on it today. But
when I try to upgrade it starts getting i686 dependencies pulled in. It
starts like this:
---> Package mesa-libEGL.x86_64 0:9.2-0.7.20130528.fc18 will b
On Sat, 2013-06-29 at 07:34 -0500, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 17:52:16 -0700,
>Adam Williamson wrote:
> >
> >I've suggested before that Bodhi should reject any update with an
> >empty description or with the placeholder text as the description.
> >That would be really h
On Sat, 2013-06-29 at 16:08 +0200, Till Maas wrote:
> If the update fixes a bug which is properly mentioned in the bugs field,
> why does this fact need to be mentioned again in the update notes? It
> should be obvious that an update fixing a bug is worth pushing out.
>
> Also instead of writing p
- Original Message -
> From: Lennart Poettering
> Subject: Re: logrotate(8) and copytruncate as default
> It will create a new file and rename the old one.
Right, thanks for confirming!
Thank you!
---
Regards
-Prasad
http://feedmug.com
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedorapr
On Sat, Jun 29, 2013 at 09:39:01 -0500,
Michael Catanzaro wrote:
On Sat, 2013-06-29 at 07:34 -0500, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 17:52:16 -0700,
Adam Williamson wrote:
>
>I've suggested before that Bodhi should reject any update with an
>empty description or with the pla
Hi all,
I am going to orphan the elementary-icon-theme, because it's of no use
to me. They dropped all the symlinks to make it compatible with other
desktops than Gnome3. So anyone interested is invited to take over.
Currently there is one open bug, where a user requests an update.
https://bu
2013/6/28 Adam Williamson :
>> Almost there, but still cannot generate chroot in mock.
>>
>> DEBUG util.py:264: Error: Package: gnuplot-4.6.2-2.fc20.x86_64 (build)
>> DEBUG util.py:264: Requires: libgd.so.2()(64bit)
>
> gnuplot appears to be failing on some sort of texlive-related n
On Sat, 29 Jun 2013 02:06:38 +0100
Sérgio Basto wrote:
> I like the idea of 19.1 pretty unofficially or untested, which fix
> some issues on mac installs. Which is basically someone run pungi
> with new boot installer stuff.
We are currently pretty unsetup for any kind of point releases.
If s
On Sat, 29 Jun 2013 10:34:09 -0400
Steve Grubb wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Did anyone notice all the i686 packages that get pulled in if you try
> to upgrade from F18? My system has no i686 packages on it today. But
> when I try to upgrade it starts getting i686 dependencies pulled in.
> It starts like th
On Sáb, 2013-06-29 at 10:34 -0400, Steve Grubb wrote:
> ---> Package mesa-libEGL-devel.i686 0:9.2-0.12.20130610.fc19 will be
> obsoleting
> --> Processing Dependency: libEGL.so.1 for package:
> mesa-libEGL-devel-9.2-0.12.20130610.fc19.i686
> ---> Package mesa-libEGL-devel.x86_64 0:9.2-0.12.20130610
On Sat, 29 Jun 2013 10:34:09 -0400, Steve Grubb wrote:
> Did anyone notice all the i686 packages that get pulled in if you try to
> upgrade from F18? My system has no i686 packages on it today. But
> when I try to upgrade it starts getting i686 dependencies pulled in. It
> starts like this:
>
>
On Fri, 28 Jun 2013 19:44:22 -0500, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
> There still seems to be an issue with the update descriptions that we
> present in PackageKit. A lot of people just write "update to version
> x.y.z" which is not great, but a whole lot better than some of the ones
> we've been seeing
On Sat, Jun 29, 2013 at 10:05:56AM -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> > I like the idea of 19.1 pretty unofficially or untested, which fix
> > some issues on mac installs. Which is basically someone run pungi
> > with new boot installer stuff.
> We are currently pretty unsetup for any kind of point relea
I can take it because I love elementary's things.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
On 2013-06-29 5:29, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
On Sat, Jun 29, 2013 at 02:06:38 +0100,
Sérgio Basto wrote:
I like the idea of 19.1 pretty unofficially or untested, which fix
some
issues on mac installs. Which is basically someone run pungi with new
boot installer stuff.
The Unity guys used t
On 2013-06-29 7:08, Till Maas wrote:
On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 07:44:22PM -0500, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
We need written policy on update descriptions, since despite the last
discussion on this list [1], poor update descriptions continue to
blemish the otherwise-professional image of the distro.
On 2013-06-29 10:04, Michael Schwendt wrote:
There are many more. Some are almost funny. I just hope we agree on
how to present Updates to the user community. No further comment.
OK, I propose a new rule: if you want to do a joke update description,
it has to be as funny as Spot's. If you can
On Sat, Jun 29, 2013 at 1:07 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> I can't personally conceive of a case in which it would make sense to simply
> have some kind of changelog as the update description. That is not what the
> description is for.
Well, this is what I do for nodejs updates. I figure since th
On Sat, Jun 29, 2013 at 8:10 AM, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 29, 2013 at 09:39:01 -0500,
> Michael Catanzaro wrote:
>> On Sat, 2013-06-29 at 07:34 -0500, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
>>> I think it does now. I forgot to add a note when rushing one of the
>>> spin-kickstarts updates and bodhi
On Sat, Jun 29, 2013 at 01:07:29PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> The upstream, RPM or git changelog is never a good update description.
>
> An update description should be a very clear high-level description
> of what the update does. The audience is a normal end-user who has
> 300 updates to a
On 2013-06-29 14:20, Till Maas wrote:
On Sat, Jun 29, 2013 at 01:07:29PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
The upstream, RPM or git changelog is never a good update description.
An update description should be a very clear high-level description
of what the update does. The audience is a normal en
On 30/06/13 03:15, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On 2013-06-29 14:20, Till Maas wrote:
>> On Sat, Jun 29, 2013 at 01:07:29PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
>>
>>> The upstream, RPM or git changelog is never a good update description.
>>>
>>> An update description should be a very clear high-level descrip
27 matches
Mail list logo
