On Sat, Oct 4, 2014 at 1:27 AM, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 03, 2014 at 06:18:11PM -0500, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
>> I agree with Rahul that "standard" is not a great name for the
>> nonstandard, non-productized upgrade, though. "Generic" is more
>> descriptive anyway.
>
> But vanilla is
Compose started at Sat Oct 4 07:15:02 UTC 2014
Broken deps for armhfp
--
[PyQuante]
PyQuante-libint-1.6.4-11.fc21.1.armv7hl requires libint(armv7hl-32) =
0:1.1.6-2.fc21
[audtty]
audtty-0.1.12-9.fc20.armv7hl requires libaudcli
If someone would review this one and let me know what to review
Review Request: dnfdaemon - Dbus daemon for dnf package actions
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1149390
Tim
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fed
Compose started at Sat Oct 4 05:15:08 UTC 2014
Broken deps for i386
--
[Agda]
ghc-Agda-2.3.2.2-5.fc22.i686 requires libHSterminfo-0.3.2.5-ghc7.6.3.so
ghc-Agda-2.3.2.2-5.fc22.i686 requires libHShaskeline-0.7.0.3-ghc7.6.3.so
On 10/03/2014 07:37 PM, Ray Strode wrote:
Hi,
I agree with Rahul that "standard" is not a great name for the
nonstandard, non-productized upgrade, though. "Generic" is more
descriptive anyway.
I'm not sure it's worth repainting the bikeshed at this point, but
during the alluded-to discussion a
I am sorry I did not fully follow the discussions earlier.
I only recall it was supposed to exist some compatibility
layer at some point.
But I keep all the time needing to
$ sudo rm -f /var/lib/rpm/__db*
because I forget and use yum instead of dnf in rawhide.
I am not really needing a
I am sorry I did not fully follow the discussions earlier.
I only recall it was supposed to exist some compatibility
layer at some point.
But I keep all the time needing to
$ sudo rm -f /var/lib/rpm/__db*
there is no need to do so
because I forget and use yum instead of dnf in rawhide.
On Fri, 2014-10-03 at 19:37 -0400, Ray Strode wrote:
> I'm not sure it's worth repainting the bikeshed at this point, but
> during the alluded-to discussion a few alternative names came up that
> would have been better than fedora-release-standard:
>
> 1) fedora-release-nonstandard
That this was
2014-10-04 11:08 GMT-03:00 Reindl Harald :
First think of me of as just an slightly above average user :)
>> I am sorry I did not fully follow the discussions earlier.
>> I only recall it was supposed to exist some compatibility
>> layer at some point.
>>
>>But I keep all the time needing t
Am 04.10.2014 um 16:49
2014-10-04 11:08 GMT-03:00 Reindl Harald :
First think of me of as just an slightly above average user :)
I am sorry I did not fully follow the discussions earlier.
I only recall it was supposed to exist some compatibility
layer at some point.
But I keep all the tim
On 10/04/2014 01:05 AM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 6:59 PM, Nico Kadel-Garci wrote:
And it's going to break backports to EPEL for RHEL 5 or RHEL 6, or
CentOS or Scientific Linux, pretty seriously
Please explain how.
Systems which haven't undergone UsrMove don't hav
Dne 4.10.2014 v 18:00 Florian Weimer napsal(a):
On 10/04/2014 01:05 AM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 6:59 PM, Nico Kadel-Garci wrote:
And it's going to break backports to EPEL for RHEL 5 or RHEL 6, or
CentOS or Scientific Linux, pretty seriously
Please explain how.
Reindl Harald writes:
> Am 03.10.2014 um 23:57 schrieb Rahul Sundaram:
>> On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 5:38 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>>
>> "generic" is technical speak or for "normal" people outside IT at best
>> has a negative context to "generica" and spam
I never heared about „generica” an
On 10/04/2014 06:03 PM, Zdenek Kabelac wrote:
We still have universal:
#/usr/bin/env bash
Sadly, some systems have /bin/env, but not /usr/bin/env.
--
Florian Weimer / Red Hat Product Security
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/
Am 04.10.2014 um 18:08 schrieb Florian Weimer:
On 10/04/2014 06:03 PM, Zdenek Kabelac wrote:
We still have universal:
#/usr/bin/env bash
Sadly, some systems have /bin/env, but not /usr/bin/env
on the Fedoras side a non-brainer
just use /bin/env since after UsrMove both works
signature.a
Am 04.10.2014 um 18:08 schrieb Jaroslav Nahorny:
Am 03.10.2014 um 23:57 schrieb Rahul Sundaram:
On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 5:38 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
"generic" is technical speak or for "normal" people outside IT at best
has a negative context to "generica" and spam
I never heared a
Dne 4.10.2014 v 18:08 Florian Weimer napsal(a):
On 10/04/2014 06:03 PM, Zdenek Kabelac wrote:
We still have universal:
#/usr/bin/env bash
Sadly, some systems have /bin/env, but not /usr/bin/env.
Sadly it's fault of that distro - Fedora is not here to fix other distro
mistakes...
'env' i
On Sat, Oct 04, 2014 at 11:02:23AM -0300, Paulo César Pereira de Andrade wrote:
> I only recall it was supposed to exist some compatibility
> layer at some point.
> But I keep all the time needing to
> $ sudo rm -f /var/lib/rpm/__db*
> because I forget and use yum instead of dnf in rawhide.
I'
On Sat, Oct 04, 2014 at 11:56:41AM +0200, drago01 wrote:
> >> I agree with Rahul that "standard" is not a great name for the
> >> nonstandard, non-productized upgrade, though. "Generic" is more
> >> descriptive anyway.
> > But vanilla is the most delicious.
> But has no meaning that context for pre
On 3 Oct 2014, at 19:37, Ray Strode wrote:
I'm not sure it's worth repainting the bikeshed at this point, but
during the alluded-to discussion a few alternative names came up that
would have been better than fedora-release-standard:
1) fedora-release-nonstandard
2) fedora-release-custom
3) fed
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi all.
These warnings appear during a package review; apparently,
fedora-review command completes all its tasks.
WARNING: Illegal return from
/usr/share/fedora-review/scripts/generic-excludearch.sh, code 82,
output: stdout:None stderr:./review-env.s
On 2014-10-04 20:12, Antonio Trande wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi all.
These warnings appear during a package review; apparently,
fedora-review command completes all its tasks.
WARNING: Illegal return from
/usr/share/fedora-review/scripts/generic-excludearch.sh, code
2014-10-04 13:32 GMT-03:00 Matthew Miller :
> On Sat, Oct 04, 2014 at 11:02:23AM -0300, Paulo César Pereira de Andrade
> wrote:
>> I only recall it was supposed to exist some compatibility
>> layer at some point.
>> But I keep all the time needing to
>> $ sudo rm -f /var/lib/rpm/__db*
>> becau
Hi
On Sat, Oct 4, 2014 at 5:03 PM, Paulo César Pereira de Andrade
>
> I did not remove "plain" yum so far on purpose, because I was expecting
> it to be automatically replaced, or kept working, but only now I sent a
> note
> about the problems I noticed :)
>
Would you filing a bug report agains
2014-10-04 18:23 GMT-03:00 Rahul Sundaram :
> Hi
>
> On Sat, Oct 4, 2014 at 5:03 PM, Paulo César Pereira de Andrade
>>
>> I did not remove "plain" yum so far on purpose, because I was expecting
>> it to be automatically replaced, or kept working, but only now I sent a
>> note
>> about the problem
I checked that I was talking from experience as 1 or more weeks
ago. For a single package install indeed, dnf and yum are now
working.
I figured I have a lot of duplicates left from some earlier update,
for example:
$ rpm -q xz-libs
xz-libs-5.1.2-13alpha.fc22.x86_64
xz-libs-5.1.2-15alpha.fc
I need python-sphinxcontrib-issuetracker to update to the latest version
of StarCluster. Any help appreciated:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1089416
I could probably review something in return as well :)
--
Orion Poplawski
Technical Manager 303-415-9701 x222
I'm happy with ext4. Just out of curiosity, though, how is XFS working out
on RHEL 7?
On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 6:43 PM, Ian Kent wrote:
> On Fri, 2014-10-03 at 13:18 +0200, Juan Orti Alcaine wrote:
> > El 2014-10-03 11:38, Steven Whitehouse escribió:
> > > Hi,
> > > I should also add (just in case
28 matches
Mail list logo
