Hello everybody,
The recently released libgdata-0.17.1 has bumped its soname. The
highlights are support for version 3 of the YouTube API, and an
initial port to version 2 of the Drive API.
This is only for rawhide. I will be rebuilding affected packages.
Cheers,
Debarshi
pgpl6YVdn6arI.pgp
Desc
Why does this bug exist only in Fedora, not in openSUSE or Mageia or *buntu?
All my systems are multiboot, so only a select very few are on UTC. None that
are on UTC have Fedora installed. This means every Fedora boot takes about
twice as long or longer than anything else takes, waiting on all the
- Original Message -
> From: "Pádraig Brady"
> To: "Development discussions related to Fedora"
>
> Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2015 8:11:45 PM
> Subject: Re: dnf caches
>
> On 23/04/15 18:44, drago01 wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 7:07 PM, Pádraig Brady wrote:
> >> My Fedora 22 syste
On 24/04/15 10:40, Radek Holy wrote:
> - Original Message -
>> From: "Pádraig Brady"
>> To: "Development discussions related to Fedora"
>>
>> Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2015 8:11:45 PM
>> Subject: Re: dnf caches
>>
>> On 23/04/15 18:44, drago01 wrote:
>>> On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 7:07 PM,
- Original Message -
> From: "Pádraig Brady"
> To: "Development discussions related to Fedora"
>
> Sent: Friday, April 24, 2015 11:58:53 AM
> Subject: Re: dnf caches
>
> On 24/04/15 10:40, Radek Holy wrote:
> > - Original Message -
> >> From: "Pádraig Brady"
> >> To: "Developme
Compose started at Fri Apr 24 07:15:02 UTC 2015
Broken deps for armhfp
--
[Sprog]
Sprog-0.14-27.fc20.noarch requires perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.18.0)
[aeskulap]
aeskulap-0.2.2-0.19beta1.fc22.armv7hl requires libofstd.so.3.6
It's taken quite a long time to sort out the bugs in gcc-5 with regard to
lesser-used arches, so I've only just managed to get cross-gcc in rawhide
upgraded to gcc-5, despite the main gcc package having got there a while ago.
Is it too late in the F22 cycle now to upgrade cross-gcc there to gcc-5?
On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 02:59:09PM +0100, David Howells wrote:
> It's taken quite a long time to sort out the bugs in gcc-5 with regard to
> lesser-used arches, so I've only just managed to get cross-gcc in rawhide
> upgraded to gcc-5, despite the main gcc package having got there a while ago.
>
>
On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 9:59 AM, David Howells wrote:
> It's taken quite a long time to sort out the bugs in gcc-5 with regard to
> lesser-used arches, so I've only just managed to get cross-gcc in rawhide
> upgraded to gcc-5, despite the main gcc package having got there a while ago.
>
> Is it to
Josh Boyer wrote:
> I don't think anything in the distro depends on the cross compilers.
> There's no associated Change, etc. Unless there's something I'm
> missing, you should be able to update them, build, and file an update
> in Bodhi to get the appropriate karma.
I was under the impression
Cole Robinson wrote:
> FWIW qemu firmware pacakges build with cross-gcc: ipxe, seabios, SLOF,
> openbios. We want to build for the target architecture but ship as noarch,
> since the roms aren't used by the host machine but only used by qemu-system-*,
> which should run on any host arch.
Which o
On 04/24/2015 10:18 AM, Josh Boyer wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 9:59 AM, David Howells wrote:
>> It's taken quite a long time to sort out the bugs in gcc-5 with regard to
>> lesser-used arches, so I've only just managed to get cross-gcc in rawhide
>> upgraded to gcc-5, despite the main gcc pac
(why does this list screw up reply-all!? )
On 04/24/2015 10:35 AM, David Howells wrote:
> Cole Robinson wrote:
>
>> FWIW qemu firmware pacakges build with cross-gcc: ipxe, seabios, SLOF,
>> openbios. We want to build for the target architecture but ship as noarch,
>> since the roms aren't used b
Cole Robinson wrote:
> ipxe, seabios, sgabios: binutils-x86_64-linux-gnu gcc-x86_64-linux-gnu
> openbios: gcc-powerpc64-linux-gnu gcc-sparc64-linux-gnu
> SLOF: gcc-powerpc64-linux-gnu
They all build on x86_64 F21 with the new cross gcc.
David
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Felix Miata earthlink.net> writes:
> Why does this bug exist only in Fedora, not in openSUSE or Mageia or *buntu?
> All my systems are multiboot, so only a select very few are on UTC. None that
> are on UTC have Fedora installed. This means every Fedora boot takes about
> twice as long or longer
Andre Robatino composed on 2015-04-24 19:44 (UTC):
> Felix Miata wrote:
>> Why does this bug exist only in Fedora, not in openSUSE or Mageia or *buntu?
>> All my systems are multiboot, so only a select very few are on UTC. None that
>> are on UTC have Fedora installed. This means every Fedora boo
Felix Miata earthlink.net> writes:
> > Just as a workaround, you CAN make a Windows box use UTC for the RTC...
>
> Multiboot is not a universe limited to Windows and Linux, and certainly not
> only the latest version of either. And, there's a whole LAN to consider, not
> one PC in isolation.
AF
Andre Robatino composed on 2015-04-25 00:25 (UTC):
> Felix Miata composed:
>> > Just as a workaround, you CAN make a Windows box use UTC for the RTC...
>> Multiboot is not a universe limited to Windows and Linux, and certainly not
>> only the latest version of either. And, there's a whole LAN to
Felix Miata earthlink.net> writes:
> > AFAIK, Windows is the only OS that has trouble using UTC for the RTC.
>
> Have you ever used DOS or OS/2? I don't remember ever seeing options at
> installation time to choose anything other than local in either one. Same for
> W95, W98, WXP & W7. How they
Andre Robatino composed on 2015-04-25 01:55 (UTC):
> The only reason Linux or any other OS needs to support having
> the RTC on local time for now is as a workaround to coexist with broken
> Windows.
Not investing resources in disturbing sleeping dogs is a reason that is
always important to some
Andre Robatino fedoraproject.org> writes:
> it looks like OS/2 is capable of keeping its RTC in TAI (which AIUI is
> basically the same as UTC except that TAI doesn't have leap seconds, so TAI
> is "real time", and UTC is TAI interspersed with leap seconds, so both
> increase monotonically, but U
V Mon, 13 Apr 2015 21:20:49 +0100
"Richard W.M. Jones" napsáno:
> On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 02:17:14PM -0500, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 17:49:45 +0100,
> > "Richard W.M. Jones" wrote:
> > >
> > >Anyway, here is the BZ:
> > >https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1211
22 matches
Mail list logo
