On Sun, Oct 6, 2013 at 7:27 AM, Sérgio Basto wrote:
>
> we still doesn't have rpmdevtools-8.4 packaged for F21 ...
I'll look into it as soon as it starts to look that devscripts will be approved.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo
On 04.10.2013 20:49, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 10:30:11AM +0200, Sandro Mani wrote:
On 23.09.2013 02:01, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 12:14:29AM +0200, Sandro Mani wrote:
On 20.09.2013 06:37, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
On
On 06.10.2013 06:27, Sérgio Basto wrote:
On Seg, 2013-09-23 at 10:30 +0200, Sandro Mani wrote:
On 23.09.2013 02:01, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 12:14:29AM +0200, Sandro Mani wrote:
On 20.09.2013 06:37, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at
Compose started at Sun Oct 6 09:15:02 UTC 2013
Broken deps for armhfp
--
[blueman]
blueman-1.23-7.fc20.armv7hl requires obex-data-server >= 0:0.4.3
blueman-1.23-7.fc20.armv7hl requires gvfs-obexftp
[bwm-ng]
bwm-ng-0.6
Am Wed, 02 Oct 2013 11:59:20 +
schrieb devel-requ...@lists.fedoraproject.org:
> Message: 2
> Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2013 19:50:45 +0200
> From: Till Maas
> To: Development discussions related to Fedora
>
> Cc: jwil...@fedoraproject.org
> Subject: New maintainer for lirc/Jarod Wilson's packag
hi,
we are using newrelic to monitor our server, they use some init.d script
which does not seem to like fedora 18
their script broke just after sourcing functions
is there some workaround ? or different file to source for legacy software
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
http
On Sun, Oct 06, 2013 at 04:16:47PM +0300, Muayyad AlSadi wrote:
> hi,
>
> we are using newrelic to monitor our server, they use some init.d script
> which does not seem to like fedora 18
>
> their script broke just after sourcing functions
>
> is there some workaround ? or different file to sour
Compose started at Sun Oct 6 08:15:03 UTC 2013
Broken deps for i386
--
[OpenEXR_CTL]
OpenEXR_CTL-1.0.1-16.fc20.i686 requires libImath.so.6
OpenEXR_CTL-1.0.1-16.fc20.i686 requires libIlmThread.so.6
OpenEXR_CTL-1.0.1-16
let's talk in general, any legacy init.d is supposed to work in systemd
and does this mean that /etc/init.d/functions won't redirect to systemctl
unless it knows that this very specific service implements systemd things
On Sun, Oct 6, 2013 at 4:26 PM, Tomasz Torcz wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 06, 2013
I shouldn't have to remind packagers that post Alpha branching
packages that are updates for rawhide (unless of course you're doing
early rawhide dev for the next release) and/or earlier releases also
need to both build and submit updates for Fedora 20.
I've just done a "yum --releasever=20 distro
On 10/06/2013 04:06 PM, Peter Robinson wrote:
> The following need to be reviewed by the maintainer as there's a
> number of builds or other issues:
> plymouth
> cups-filters
I have fixed plymouth:
http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/plymouth.git/commit/?id=714e0ef
--
Kalev
--
devel mailing lis
On 10/06/2013 04:06 PM, Peter Robinson wrote:
fakeroot
I don't understand this.
With f20/rawhide as of yesterday, fakeroot in f20 and rawhide were
identical, because fakeroot was built before f20 was branched:
./development/rawhide/source/SRPMS/f/fakeroot-1.18.4-1.fc20.src.rpm
./development/
On 10/06/2013 07:01 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 10/06/2013 04:06 PM, Peter Robinson wrote:
fakeroot
I don't understand this.
With f20/rawhide as of yesterday, fakeroot in f20 and rawhide were
identical, because fakeroot was built before f20 was branched:
./development/rawhide/source/SRPMS/
On Sun, 06 Oct 2013 19:11:41 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> I now see ... the version in f19 was greater than that in f20+rawhide,
> for whatever reasons.
> Actually, I wonder why AutoQA did not complain.
There are no AutoQA comments in that bodhi ticket at all. Almost as if
AutoQA has not been
Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Sun, 06 Oct 2013 19:11:41 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>
>> I now see ... the version in f19 was greater than that in f20+rawhide,
>> for whatever reasons.
>> Actually, I wonder why AutoQA did not complain.
>
> There are no AutoQA comments in that bodhi ticket at all
On 10/05/2013 07:08 AM, Mathieu Bridon wrote:
So every time you say that, I can't help thinking you're just jealous
they took someone « outside the community » instead of you.
It might not be what you're thinking, but it's really how you sound.
Maybe those « individuals » are just more compe
On Sun, 06 Oct 2013 15:09:24 -0500, Rex Dieter wrote:
> Michael Schwendt wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 06 Oct 2013 19:11:41 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> >
> >> I now see ... the version in f19 was greater than that in f20+rawhide,
> >> for whatever reasons.
> >> Actually, I wonder why AutoQA did not co
On Fri, 04.10.13 16:04, Matthew Miller (mat...@fedoraproject.org) wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 04, 2013 at 02:15:07PM -0500, Lokesh Mandvekar wrote:
> > So, IP forwarding seems to be disabled by default in Fedora. docker-io
> > requires IP forwarding enabled
> >
> > With respect to packaging, we'd like t
Le 06/10/2013 22:18, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" a écrit :
>
> You are making the assumption that Red Hat has not already offered me
> a job as well as the fact that I would associate my name to a company
> when behaves like this.
>
> Good for you...
>
> JBG
I don't think that's what Mathieu meant her
On Sun, 06.10.13 16:16, Muayyad AlSadi (als...@gmail.com) wrote:
> hi,
>
> we are using newrelic to monitor our server, they use some init.d script
> which does not seem to like fedora 18
>
> their script broke just after sourcing functions
>
> is there some workaround ? or different file to so
On Sun, 06.10.13 16:41, Muayyad AlSadi (als...@gmail.com) wrote:
> let's talk in general, any legacy init.d is supposed to work in systemd
> and does this mean that /etc/init.d/functions won't redirect to systemctl
> unless it knows that this very specific service implements systemd things
I am n
On Sun, Oct 06, 2013 at 11:32:13PM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> Or in other words: I don't think it makes much sense to turn this on
> only at runtime inside the service file as matthew suggests, as it hides
> the fact that the setting is made, makes it hard for admins to discover
> and overr
On Sun, Oct 6, 2013 at 1:51 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Sun, 06 Oct 2013 15:09:24 -0500, Rex Dieter wrote:
>
>> Michael Schwendt wrote:
>>
>> > On Sun, 06 Oct 2013 19:11:41 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>> >
>> >> I now see ... the version in f19 was greater than that in f20+rawhide,
>> >> for
On Sun, Oct 6, 2013 at 5:01 PM, Dan Mashal wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 6, 2013 at 1:51 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
>> On Sun, 06 Oct 2013 15:09:24 -0500, Rex Dieter wrote:
>>
>>> Michael Schwendt wrote:
>>>
>>> > On Sun, 06 Oct 2013 19:11:41 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> I now see ... the ve
On Dom, 2013-10-06 at 12:05 +0200, Sandro Mani wrote:
> The *-keyring packages are not strictly
> dependencies (though they would probably be appropriate "Suggests:"
> if
> we had something similar), since pbuilder is not limited to building
> packages for debian and ubuntu, but might also be us
On 07.10.2013 02:17, Sérgio Basto wrote:
On Dom, 2013-10-06 at 12:05 +0200, Sandro Mani wrote:
The *-keyring packages are not strictly
dependencies (though they would probably be appropriate "Suggests:"
if
we had something similar), since pbuilder is not limited to building
packages for debian
On Seg, 2013-10-07 at 02:21 +0200, Sandro Mani wrote:
> On 07.10.2013 02:17, Sérgio Basto wrote:
> > On Dom, 2013-10-06 at 12:05 +0200, Sandro Mani wrote:
> >> The *-keyring packages are not strictly
> >> dependencies (though they would probably be appropriate "Suggests:"
> >> if
> >> we had somet
On 07.10.2013 02:26, Sérgio Basto wrote:
On Seg, 2013-10-07 at 02:21 +0200, Sandro Mani wrote:
On 07.10.2013 02:17, Sérgio Basto wrote:
On Dom, 2013-10-06 at 12:05 +0200, Sandro Mani wrote:
The *-keyring packages are not strictly
dependencies (though they would probably be appropriate "Sugges
On Dom, 2013-10-06 at 11:46 +0300, Ville Skyttä wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 6, 2013 at 7:27 AM, Sérgio Basto wrote:
> >
> > we still doesn't have rpmdevtools-8.4 packaged for F21 ...
>
> I'll look into it as soon as it starts to look that devscripts will be
> approved.
haven't we enter in loop here ?
On 07.10.2013 02:32, Sérgio Basto wrote:
On Dom, 2013-10-06 at 11:46 +0300, Ville Skyttä wrote:
On Sun, Oct 6, 2013 at 7:27 AM, Sérgio Basto wrote:
we still doesn't have rpmdevtools-8.4 packaged for F21 ...
I'll look into it as soon as it starts to look that devscripts will be approved.
hav
On Sun, 6 Oct 2013 19:27:33 +0200
Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Sun, 06 Oct 2013 19:11:41 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>
> > I now see ... the version in f19 was greater than that in
> > f20+rawhide, for whatever reasons.
> > Actually, I wonder why AutoQA did not complain.
>
> There are no AutoQ
On Sun, 06 Oct 2013 15:09:24 -0500
Rex Dieter wrote:
> Michael Schwendt wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 06 Oct 2013 19:11:41 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> >
> >> I now see ... the version in f19 was greater than that in
> >> f20+rawhide, for whatever reasons.
> >> Actually, I wonder why AutoQA did not co
On 10/07/2013 03:49 AM, Tim Flink wrote:
On Sun, 06 Oct 2013 15:09:24 -0500
Rex Dieter wrote:
Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Sun, 06 Oct 2013 19:11:41 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
I now see ... the version in f19 was greater than that in
f20+rawhide, for whatever reasons.
Actually, I wonder wh
On Mon, 07 Oct 2013 04:03:16 +0200
Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On 10/07/2013 03:49 AM, Tim Flink wrote:
> > On Sun, 06 Oct 2013 15:09:24 -0500
> > Rex Dieter wrote:
> >
> >> Michael Schwendt wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Sun, 06 Oct 2013 19:11:41 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> >>>
> I now see ... the ve
On Sat, Oct 5, 2013 at 2:12 PM, Denis Arnaud wrote:
> Hi Dave,
>
> note that Boost-1.48 has been packaged for EPEL 5 and 6, but not yet
> approved: http://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=921134
> In case it is useful to anyone, do not hesitate to approve it :)
> And if there is more love, we c
# Fedora Quality Assurance Meeting
# Date: 2013-10-07
# Time: 15:00 UTC
(https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Infrastructure/UTCHowto)
# Location: #fedora-meeting on irc.freenode.net
Greetings testers!
It's meeting time again! Time to check in on the Beta, and also on the
test day program and the issue
On Mon, Oct 7, 2013 at 3:32 AM, Sérgio Basto wrote:
> On Dom, 2013-10-06 at 11:46 +0300, Ville Skyttä wrote:
>> On Sun, Oct 6, 2013 at 7:27 AM, Sérgio Basto wrote:
>> >
>> > we still doesn't have rpmdevtools-8.4 packaged for F21 ...
>>
>> I'll look into it as soon as it starts to look that devscr
37 matches
Mail list logo
